Mark Corroto's Review of "Trio in Tokyo"

[joesilver]

In his review of the late Michel Petricciani's "Trio in Tokyo," Mark Corroto includes a parenthetical remark about bassist Anthony Jackson: "I could have done without his electrified bass." As someone who spent nearly thirty years trying to establish a career as an electric bassist, I suppose I should be immune to such prejudice by now, and should simply ignore it. After all, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

Unfortunately, all too many jazz writers (including, notoriously, Gary Giddins) share this bias, particularly in this post-Marsalis era of musical conservatism. As we know, people who write for jazz publications and Web sites are in a position of power — power to influence people's musical tastes. To make a long story short, the pervasive snobbery about the use of electric bass in jazz — fed in part by the media - has made it a real struggle for me to find work, and ultimately influenced me to stop trying and to give up on the idea of a musical career.

There is a lot more I could say about this subject — including the fact that there are fantastic electric bassists with great ears and a thorough grounding in jazz, who seem to have a very tough time finding work. (How many albums has Jeff Berlin appeared on lately? Jeff Andrews? A mediocre upright bass player will nowadays certainly get the call before an outstanding electric bassist.) I do feel compelled to note that Anthony Jackson is a brilliant musician whose work has been widely admired since the '70s; his name will certainly be remembered long after Mark Corroto's has been forgotten.

Incidentally, Mark, I have never heard anyone else refer to the instrument as an "electrified bass." Musicians generally call it the electric bass, bass guitar, Fender bass (a somewhat old-school term dating from an era when the Fender Musical Instrument company had little serious competition in electric bass sales), contrabass guitar (to borrow Anthony Jackson's own name for his six-stringed instrument), or simply "the bass."

[Coypu]

Well, somepeople will always be stuck in the past without the guts to move forward. As tragic as it may seem the good news is that electric bass dominates in almost all genres that are progressive so if some old jazz guys can't understand it then it will change with time and the newer generations. I think that Jaco, Jeff & Gary Willis ... have showed us the greatness of electric bass and since you can play faster on electric it will always have an edge in advanced music.

[joesilver]

Check out C. Michael Bailey's review of The Dizzy Gillespie Alumni All-Stars: Dizzy’s 80th Birthday Party at http://www.allaboutjazz.com/reviews/r0298_34.htm. Jeez, do all of AAJ's writers go to the same school of narrow-minded jazz orthodoxy?... [Note: This review has since been removed from the All About Jazz site.]

For your convenience, the passage in question reads, "The rhythm section is very good, in spite of my dislike for the electric bass in an acoustic setting."

[Coypu]

I have played both double bass and electric and I can really understand the use of double bass in classical music since the bow gives you more tone control and really works better than electric for classical music but when it comes to jazz and fusion and you might be comparing finger playing on both then I just can't see why someone would prefer a double bass. A electric bass is not only faster but also plays with less squirks and you can better get a good basstone. Oh well, atleast I don't hear stuff like this in the genres I personally play in but I feel for thoose who do.

[markvi]

it all depends on the style. when i hire a bass to play a cocktail hour or small club the acoustic upright is my preference. if it's a job requiring a more aggressive style, then it's electric. tone is a matter of taste. mingus, dave holland, ray brown, et al. sound awful good to me especially without amplification. dave holland certainly is progressive in thinking and style. i don't think an electric is an improvement over their tone. the type of bass should fit the style of the group. for example, i just can't imagine the mingus big band playing with an electric bass. after all they are 2 distinctly different instruments that often perform the same function. i like working with both, but not at the same time of course.

[joesilver]

Originally posted by markvi
...mingus, dave holland, ray brown, et al. sound awful good to me especially without amplification.

Me too! But so do the late Jaco Pastorius, Steve Swallow, Kermit Driscoll, Alain Caron and Dominique DiPiazza, to name just a few. These players can handle a multitude of styles and approaches, not just aggressive "electric music."

dave holland certainly is progressive in thinking and style.

He's a great musician. I also greatly admire his electric bass playing on Miles Davis' "Black Beauty" album. He shows himself to be an electric bassist of formidable technique and an original approach - in the pre-Jaco era, no less. I wish he had kept at it.

for example, i just can't imagine the mingus big band playing with an electric bass.

Well, Mingus himself certainly wouldn't have approved! :) He was one of those musicians who had a strong negative opinion about the electric bass. It's been widely reported that he wasn't happy about Joni Mitchell's use of Jaco Pastorius on her "Mingus" album. (By the way, here's a fun mental exercise: Imagine Mingus trying to play the bass solo that opens Weather Report's "Punk Jazz," or Jaco's "Portrait of Tracy.")

Personally, I have a theory that a lot of jazz musicians of Mingus' generation were extremely bitter after the Beatles exploded onto the music scene, paving the way for rock music to dominate popular culture and push jazz almost entirely out of people's consciousness for several years. This bitterness extends to a rejection of what are perceived to be the "tools" of the rock trade, including, notably, the electric bass.

However, big bands have made use of the electric bass, including the bands of Buddy Rich, Woody Herman, and Bob Mintzer, as well as the stripped-down big band that played on Johnny Carson's "Tonight" show for decades.

[markvi]

it's still two different instruments serving the same function. they have a slightly different timbre, but the subtle difference is why some choose electric for some gigs, upright for others. i certainly don't deny the validity of the electric in jazz, but different situations often call for different instruments. an alto sax overlapping the tenor range sounds different than the tenor in the same range. two different instruments serving the same function. i've heard dave holland on electric and he's an animal, but his upright in the quartet fits the bill. apparently holland has no prejudice against the electric, but he must feel that the upright is the right tool for the job when it comes to the quartet. by the way, have you heard his solo album? man, if you're a bass player, you'll enjoy it.

[joesilver]

Originally posted by markvi
by the way, have you heard [Dave Holland's] solo album? man, if you're a bass player, you'll enjoy it.

I assume you mean his most recent album. I haven't heard it yet, but I'm sure it's good. I'm on a long CD-buying moratorium, until I find a job that will pay me sufficiently to enable me to afford such luxuries! :)

I remember Holland's quartet album from many years ago, "Conference of the Birds," which is great. He also put out an unaccompanied solo bass album on ECM in the '70s. I have to give him credit for having the ambition to try such a thing.

But moving from the lofty realm of Holland, Pastorius and Mingus to the more mundane level of, say, me... :) I have to admit that I have a chip on my shoulder regarding the subject of bandleaders or even club owners who'd seemingly rather hire a less-capable upright bassist than a good, sensitive, well-rounded electric bassist. I lost a lot of gigs for this reason.

In my musical career I was lucky enough to work with some extremely accomplished players, a few of whom have even gone on to a modest level of fame. I heard a lot of positive comments from these musicians about my playing; yet, whenever one of them would start moving up to a better class of gigs or recordings, they would always use upright bassists rather than me.

There is one occasion in particular that still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth: I used to work fairly regularly at a now-defunct jazz club in Long Island, New York. At least, on weekdays I did; the club owner never asked me to play on a weekend. (I should note that weekday gigs at this club usually paid about $20, and it was hard to find musicians who would work for this amount of money. Lacking, at that time, the proper mercenary instinct , I would eagerly take these gigs just to have a chance to play!)

One of the groups with which I worked was a piano trio, and I must say that after a stretch of regular gigs at this club, we were getting pretty good. However, one weekend the owner of the club hired saxophonist/flutist Frank Wess for an engagement, and for the back-up band he hired the pianist and drummer from my trio... and an upright bassist! To add insult to injury, this bassist was a guy with whom I knew the club owner had had a serious disagreement some time before, and he had been banned from the club ever since. I guess the club owner was so eager to find a "real" bassist for Frank Wess that he was willing to let bygones be bygones. :mad:

Anyway, to this day I still regret that I was robbed of the opportunity to work with Frank Wess. I feel slightly vindicated, however, by the fact that Wess made an album a few years ago with personnel including electric bassist Mark Egan. (Seemingly, only a "name" player like Egan can get away with sneaking onto a jazz album once in a while.)

[markvi]

the holland cd i'm referring to is called "ones all' and was put out in the mid 90"s sometime. i hadn't heard of it until my daughter gave it to me for my birthday a couple years ago. but the title describes it pretty well.-- just dave, that's all.

[joesilver]

Incidentally, the earliest album in any genre to feature electric bass happens to be a jazz album. It's The Art Farmer Septet, on Prestige, recorded in 1953. The tracks in question include Monk Montgomery as the bassist. Montgomery went on to make several recordings that same year with Lionel Hampton.

Personally, I think the lack of general acceptance today for the electric bass in straight-ahead jazz has a lot to do with timing. The first commercially successful electric bass was issued by Fender Musical Instruments in 1951, by which time instrumentation in jazz had pretty well solidified. In earlier years, however, jazz instrumention was more fluid. (Duke Ellington, for example, at various points had two bassists in his orchestra at once, while notable ensembles such as the Louis Armstrong Hot Five and the Benny Goodman Trio and Quartet had no bassist.)

Just imagine, for a moment, that instead of 1951, the Fender bass had appeared ten years earlier, in 1941. Also imagine that a talented jazz musician had picked up on it in the same way that Charlie Christian made the electric guitar a legitimate voice in jazz. (Maybe that pioneering electric bassist would have been Christian himself! He was known to perform on string bass in addition to guitar.)

Now, if, say, Charlie Parker or Dizzy Gillespie had heard someone blowing real jazz solos on a bass that could actually be heard in an ensemble, don't you think they might have embraced the instrument and used it in their bands? If so, imagine how different people's perceptions of the electric bass in jazz would be today! It would be a required part of any jazz ensemble. If someone were actually to show up at a gig or jam session today with an acoustic bass, it might provoke the same sort of reaction that would occur if he were to bring a tuba! (And don't forget, the tuba was a standard part of jazz ensembles in the earliest decades of jazz' history.)

[jazzypaul]

Joe...two questions...

1) Instead of whining, why didn't you just learn the acoustic bass at some point? People make their own problems for themselves. If you know you want to play mainstream jazz, there are some things you are bound to. Like, ummm, yeah, an acoustic bass.

2) THE WOOD SOUND. I have yet to hear you bring up the woody sound of the acoustic bass. I know I won't hire an electric bassist for my group because I simply like the sound of an acoustic. And if the ensemble can't hear you, it's time for a bigger amp. Does this make me a bad person?

[joesilver]

Originally posted by jazzypaul
Joe...two questions...

1) Instead of whining, why didn't you just learn the acoustic bass at some point? People make their own problems for themselves. If you know you want to play mainstream jazz, there are some things you are bound to. Like, ummm, yeah, an acoustic bass.

Paul,

Thank you for your reply, and for your interest in this thread. I have heard your line of thought expressed by other musicians, i.e., that there is an orthodoxy to which one must adhere if one wishes to be a jazz musician — a set of "rules," presumably chiseled in stone by the jazz gods and handed down to us from above. Would the world ever have known the brilliance of Duke Ellington, Thelonious Monk, Charles Mingus, Ornette Coleman, Sun Ra, and — yes — Jaco Pastorius, to cite just a few noted musical iconoclasts, if these figures had felt compelled to adhere to the guidelines set by the example of their forebears rather than forging their own unique trails?

Admittedly, this slavish adherence to dogma is not unique to our current musically conservative age. Pioneering electric guitarist Charlie Christian performed on one of the earliest Blue Note recording sessions, in 1941, and label founder Alfred Lion insisted that he use an acoustic guitar rather than his more familiar electric, on the grounds that the electric instrument was not part of the jazz tradition. (Regrettably, history did not record whether Lion said something to the 22-year-old musician like, "Y'know, Charlie, if you know you want to play mainstream jazz, there are some things you are bound to. Like, ummm, yeah, an acoustic guitar.") Of course, within a few years it became de rigeur for guitarists in jazz bands to play the electric guitar — with Count Basie band member Freddie Green being perhaps the only notable holdout on the acoustic instrument.

What was different about that era from today? Why was the electric guitar able to eclipse completely its predecessors, the acoustic guitar and banjo, in ensemble jazz in the decade between about 1940 and 1950, in spite of prior decades of acoustic guitar/banjo "tradition," and retain its position of dominance to this day — whereas the electric bass, after a period of relative acceptance in the 1970s, has today been relegated to a decidedly subordinate role in jazz, even after having been around for a half-century? I believe that at least part of the reason is that in the thirties and forties jazz was still a living, breathing, and changing art form, ready and willing to accept new ideas and assimilate them into its fabric, whereas today it is largely — let's face it — a museum piece, in the custody of reactionaries such as Wynton Marsalis, not to mention jazz critics whose influence as "taste makers" far exceeds their knowledge of music.

At one time I might have found it strange for someone — a musician, no less — to say that "there are some things you are bound to" in jazz. After all, I would have wondered, isn't jazz about freedom? About expressing one's individuality, without inhibitions or constraints? Isn't the word "bound" itself somewhat antithetical to the spirit of jazz? However, today I know better. It seems that the objective of jazz has become to copy what has preceded us, rather than to make original statements.

As for why I didn't learn the acoustic bass during my musical career, the answer is that I studied it for a while, and simply didn't like it. I do enjoy listening to masterful players such as Niels-Henning Ørsted Pedersen and Dave Holland, but the physical aspects of playing the instrument were just too uncomfortable for me. The bass violin requires the player to hunch over its body for prolonged periods, causing spinal curvature and back pain. Furthermore, I suppose I lacked the discipline to continue practicing once I started developing extremely painful blood blisters on the fingers of my right hand. The upright bass seemed to me to be one big instrument of torture — to say nothing of the hassle of lugging the thing around. Talk about "making one's own problems for oneself"!

I put in a lot of time on the electric bass over the years, and it didn't seem fair to me to have to start all over again, in essence, and learn an entirely different playing technique — and adapt my physiognomy to what was for me an uncomfortable and unnatural stance. The electric and acoustic basses can serve the same function in a band, but they are simply two different instruments.

--- Continued in next post ---

[joesilver]

--- Continued from previous post ---

Originally posted by jazzypaul
2) THE WOOD SOUND. I have yet to hear you bring up the woody sound of the acoustic bass. I know I won't hire an electric bassist for my group because I simply like the sound of an acoustic. And if the ensemble can't hear you, it's time for a bigger amp.

I've heard the "woody sound" argument before, from musicians who are seemingly oblivious to the fact that electric basses are made of wood too! Actually, in all too many jazz groups that I've heard, "the wood sound" of the acoustic bass (or what should more accurately be called the amplified acoustic bass) is really "the plywood sound." Good, carved-top upright basses are frighteningly expensive — well into five figures, unless one happens to find an exceptional deal. Therefore, many working musicians either can't afford a good bass or prefer not to take their prized instrument out to gigs, so they use a less expensive plywood bass. These instruments tend to have a vague, thumpy, and decidedly non-"woody" tone that, to my ears, is indisputably inferior to that of a good electric bass.

Even among pro musicians who are making a lot of money and can afford decent upright basses, in many instances what we hear is so over-amplified and poorly equalized that it doesn't sound like "wood" at all. Ron Carter, a respected bassist, is a good example. Can anyone seriously claim that his bass sounds like a non-amplified acoustic instrument? Maybe this was the case on his '60s recordings with Miles Davis and others, but his sound changed dramatically in the '70s — for the worse, IMHO. It was at this point that he discovered amplification, and that his ego apparently began to demand that his bass be the most prominent instrument in whatever ensemble with which he happened to be performing.

I believe that a lot of what musicians describe as the "wood" sound of an upright bass is actually more a product of three other factors:

1) The "air" sound of a hollow-bodied stringed instrument. Hollow-bodied upright basses do have a tonal quality that is distinct from that of solid-bodied electric basses, just as hollow-bodied guitars — even electric ones — sound different from those with solid bodies. (It is worth noting that Belgian Gypsy jazz guitarist Django Reinhardt performed at times on a Macaferri guitar whose hollow body was made of plastic, not wood.) Actually, some bass guitar manufacturers have addressed this issue, by adding chambers to the bodies of their instruments. The result doesn't sound like a large-bodied upright bass, but, in many cases, produces a pleasing sound of its own, striking a balance between the tight, precise sound of a solid-body bass guitar and the airiness of a hollow-body upright.

2) The visual aspect, for those who "listen" at least as much with their eyes as with their ears. This angle was not lost on directors of music videos in the early days of MTV, who often placed upright basses in their productions as props, for added visual "style." Interestingly, I noticed that an apparent increase in "upright bass snobbery" in jazz seemed to coincide with the ascendancy of MTV in the '80s! Were jazzers influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by trends in teen pop culture? One probably shouldn't be too quick to dismiss the idea! After all, the mass media affect us all, in countless ways, both overt and subtle — our opinions, our attitudes, our spending habits...

3) The added length and thickness of the strings on an upright bass as compared to those of a standard-sized electric. Admittedly, physics dictate that a longer, thicker string will produce a stronger fundamental than a shorter, thinner one. Many bassists use solid-body electric upright basses with the same scale length as an acoustic upright bass, and manage to get away without being criticized for the lack of "wood" in their sound, despite the fact that their instruments are no more "woody" than a standard solid-body bass guitar.

The downside of the additional string length and thickness on the upright is that they impede technical facility — which brings up another reason for my preference for the electric bass. Frankly, I enjoy hearing good solos by instrumentalists who don't seem to have to cope with technical limitations. Aside from the aforementioned NHØP, I don't hear too many upright bassists who sound as if they have a direct connection between their brains and their fingers when they solo, as a good sax player, guitarist or pianist might. Most upright bassists — even the most accomplished ones — sound to me as if they are struggling with the instrument, to varying degrees. How many upright bassists can produce solos that are as technically proficient and musically compelling as those of electric bass masters Jeff Berlin, Gary Willis, Jeff Andrews, or Alain Caron, as well as many others one could name?

Suppose jazz pianists were forced to play on special jumbo-sized "jazz pianos" whose keys were spread out about 25% further from each other than on a standard piano, and whose action was considerably stiffer. Do you think they'd stand for it?

By the way, the reference in my last post to the upright bass not being audible applied to the pre-amplification era (and specifically to the early '40s, during the genesis of bebop), not to today. I stand by my assertion that if the electric bass had been around during the time when modern jazz was taking shape in jam sessions at Minton's and Monroe's in Harlem, thumpy, pitch-challenged upright players with limited soloing capabilities, such as Curley Russell and Tommy Potter (remembered today mainly for their associations with Charlie Parker), wouldn't have stood a chance. Furthermore, the electric bass, not the upright, might today be the bass of choice for jazz.

Originally posted by jazzypaul
Keep Your Ears Open...

Funny you should say that, Paul... :)

[jazzypaul]

wow, all of that so I could simply say...

I respect every word of what you said. And trust me, it's nothing visual when I say this, because playing the double bass looks somewhat silly, but I love the sound of an acoustic. I like the thump. I like the sound of wood reverberating. I like the sound of fingers sliding down super thick strings. I know, it makes me a horrible horrible throwback to the past with no hope for the future, but it's the sound that I like. And when I'm leading a band, trust me, I could care less about anything else besides sound.

[joesilver]

Originally posted by jazzypaul
I know, it makes me a horrible horrible throwback to the past with no hope for the future...

Aww, don't beat yourself up! :) You are certainly not horrible for exercising your prerogative to hire whomever you choose for your gigs, and I don't consider you a throwback either. On the contrary, you are very much in tune with modern sentiments. If anything, it is I who am a throwback. The electric bass was probably more accepted in jazz 25–30 years ago than it is today.

A glance at the Blue Note and Prestige discographies posted at http://www.tgs.gr.jp/jazz/ (this is the main page, containing links to specific portions of the discographies) will show that there were many releases on these labels in the early- to mid-'70s that featured electric bass. Granted, some of these albums were jazz/rock at its most cynical and least adventurous, but there were some genuine jazz releases, such as Dexter Gordon's 1973 album Blues a la Suisse, featuring Bob Cranshaw on electric bass.

Actually, I'm currently planning a project that may or may not ever get off the ground, depending on whether or not I have the time for it, and also on whether or not I surmise that there would be sufficient interest among jazz fans. It would be a Web site containing a critical guide to straight-ahead jazz recordings with electric bass. There are perhaps more such recordings than one might expect, including Cranshaw's work with Gordon, Sonny Rollins and Gene Ammons, Steve Swallow's long tenure with Gary Burton, Rick Laird's various appearances as both sideman and leader, etc.

[3pointdeli]

the comments about the air between the wood was something i was going to bring up as a primary difference between electric and acoustic bass sounds. if you'll indulge me a slightly non-jazz example, i'd like to bring up the album "astral weeks" by van morrison. that record featured members of mjq and other jazz players. i'm don't recall who the bass player was, but i don't think it was percy heath (from mjq.) anyway, i was listening to a track off of that one a few days ago and i was struck by the airy sound of the acoustic bass. you can hear the air even with all the other instruments playing (not sure exactly which song it was...i'll check when i get home.) an electric bass wouldn't have worked, no matter how tastefully played, on that record. there are many examples where the opposite is true, of course.

that stinks that club owners pass you up for gigs...especially, in one case, in favor of someone he doesn't even like! OUCH! i'm sorry, but not surprised, to hear about that. i imagine keyboard players go through the same thing. maybe some folks think that an amplified instrument automatically means a way-too-loud instrument.

do the best you can. i guess that's all anyone can do.

[joesilver]

Originally posted by 3pointdeli
that stinks that club owners pass you up for gigs...especially, in one case, in favor of someone he doesn't even like! OUCH! i'm sorry, but not surprised, to hear about that.
Thanks for your support. Actually, it wasn't just club owners. The example I cited was a rare instance where the club owner himself would put bands together to fill up the nightly entertainment calendar at his jazz club.

Often it was musicians who would exhibit this prejudice. There were actually instances where someone would hear me play in some situation and ask me to do a gig at some point in the future. Then, in the course of conversation, this person would ask me, as an afterthought, "Oh, you do have an upright, don't you?", on the assumption that I even played the upright. Then, when I'd answer "No," the person would rescind the gig offer! In many cases, they'd end up hiring some plywood bass-thumpin', can't-soloin', out-of-tune-playin' mofo instead.

Thankfully, this is all behind me now. I found it too difficult to make a living as a musician, and eventually gave it up.

[3pointdeli]

that stinks joe. keep playing that bass regardless of where your paycheck comes from.

btw, that van morrison tune was called "sweet thing." i failed to check the liner notes to see who the bassist was though. i want to say ron carter, but that may be wrong.

[joesilver]

Originally posted by 3pointdeli
that stinks joe. keep playing that bass regardless of where your paycheck comes from.

Admittedly, I'm going through a somewhat bitter period right now regarding music - and not just because of the issue we've been discussing in this thread. In short, I feel that I need to put my energies elsewhere. However, I might get back to playing one of these days. If I start making enough money, maybe I'll even buy a decent upright bass and give it another chance!

Originally posted by 3pointdeli
btw, that van morrison tune was called "sweet thing." i failed to check the liner notes to see who the bassist was though. i want to say ron carter, but that may be wrong.
It's Richard Davis. I don't know the album well, but I remember being impressed by his work on it. I've also heard some Laura Nyro tracks where Davis plays a mean electric bass, kind of in the James Jamerson vein.

[ecohouse]

I just read Mr. Silver's reply and I agree with him. It seems that if you don't play an upright bass then you aren't playing jazz.

It is this type of "in the box" thinking that is limiting jazz and stopping it from moving forward.

But let's face it as bad as Mr. Silver talks about it is for bass players it is nothing compared to what trombone players have to go through.

I have been playing trombone professionally in New York for a long time and if you don't play sax then you don't work.

I've talked to A&R people at jazz labels and have been told that they already have a trombone player on their label. Of course there is no limit to the number of sax players on their labels.

You can listen to WBGO all day long and you would be lucky to hear one song in a day where the trombone player is the leader.

Does this mean that bone players can't write tunes and lead groups? I don't think so, it's the mentality of the business.

Columbia would always put their money behind a trumpet player ( i.e. Miles Davis, Jimmy Owens, Wynton Marsalsi, etc.) This has never happened for a bone player.

So yes Mr. Silver has a beef about bass players, but the bottom line is that every record has one and he should be happy for that.

[Nils]

sorry guys, i'm late. the start of the thread (and its persistent title) caught my eye too late. most specifically the comments of the originator, joe silver, but relevant in a general sense.

this deserves attention because i think it's an example of how some people don't realize who are their friends and who are their enemies. writers and musicians are allies. if you don't appreciate that fact, then consider why writers do what they do. (it's not because they hate the music.) think about that. we need each other.

plenty of writers are into the herd mentality, sure, but it's a serious mistake to see a single goat as a whole herd. that goat can be quite ephemeral.

in the very beginning joel silver said:

>>
In his review of the late Michel Petricciani's "Trio in Tokyo," Mark Corroto includes a parenthetical remark about bassist Anthony Jackson: "I could have done without his electrified bass." As someone who spent nearly thirty years trying to establish a career as an electric bassist, I suppose I should be immune to such prejudice by now, and should simply ignore it. After all, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.
<<

it's interesting that you go on to single mark corroto out to serve as the perfect example for your decades of struggle. one parenthetical remark directed at a very specific musical situation (in a way that says nothing other than his opinion of that musical situation). and so he becomes the villain, for his practice of "pervasive snobbery."

>>
I do feel compelled to note that Anthony Jackson is a brilliant musician whose work has been widely admired since the '70s; his name will certainly be remembered long after Mark Corroto's has been forgotten.
<<

which essentially communicates that you are so convinced about your point that you neglected to realize that you too may quite likely be forgotten long before anthony jackson (and me as well, no doubt about that). this glass house thing is very important.

you didn't like michael bailey's opinion either, when he said he generally preferred the acoustic bass in an acoustic setting. but did you read the next sentence?

>>
However, an acoustic bass could not have carried the burning "Manteca" as John Lee’s electric did.
<<

that one statement embodies the whole spirit of what people have been talking about in this thread. different instruments sound different in different situations.

(and for the record, dave holland has made at least three solo recordings. my favorite "emerald tears" (1977) is moving, with a heavy braxton emphasis. "ones all" (93) same warmth but more mainstream. "life cycle" (82) has him on cello, romantic and open-ended.)

have you read any of mark corroto or michael bailey's other reviews? those two writers have contributed some of the most openminded material this magazine has ever published. if michael has an opinion (and i'm sure he has his own reasons for it) and he disagrees with you, does that make him closedminded? the glass house thing again.

now i must say officially and formally that i occupy the position of managing editor at AAJ, and i would stay real quiet if these personal things didn't get so out of control. i'm a real person, and it makes me sad to see musicians diss writers out of hand. (you'll note i said "out of hand.") it happens much more often than i would like, and likewise with writers who use the trigger finger. (and trust me, that's something i take very seriously.)

if we don't work together, who will work for us? a point of view is one thing. michael disagrees with you. i disagree with him. who's right?

these are two very open minded guys. they think, they listen, they have opinions. and they don't stand for anyone other themself. read what they have to say about the music. their words speak for themselves.

if you've confused an opinion with some "school of narrow minded jazz orthodoxy" then maybe you should look inward. we don't operate such a school here. my view, of course. maybe you still disagree. i am more than happy to converse at length about the ideas that drive this publication. we are an open book.

nils

[valo]

Originally posted by Nils
writers and musicians are allies. if you don't appreciate that fact, then consider why writers do what they do. (it's not because they hate the music.) think about that. we need each other.

I completely agree with this statement. There's a percpetion that critics are often just frustrated musicians, bitter that they can't succeed in the world of music. But is it possible that one can not be a musician and still have a passion for music. Without listeners, musc would lose some of its meaning. Same thing goes for books and their readers, paintings and their viewers.

Critics definitely get a bad rap from musicians too often (sometimes justified) but writers perform a valuable service for musicians. They push their music into the public eye, make it a topic of discussion, thereby helping that musician make a living.

Of course, critics do give negative reviews, and some critics will be overly negative, but without this kind of debate, where would the vitality of music, and art in general, come from? I think it is good for musicians to know how their music is perceived. Just because the perception doesn't match what they had in mind when they made the music shouldn't be a reason to stop listening to what that critic has to say. It also doesn't mean that a musician has to completely accept what a critic says, be it negative or positive.

The first task of a critic is this-respect the music, find out what makes it work and then judge its success. There's a famous quote by Ellington that has shown up in the "Jazz Critics" thread. It says that critics are too often more concerned with what a musician didn't do than with what he actually did. An important observation about the role of critics, but I also think that Ellington would want critics to have opinions.

Here is where critics have to performa balancing act: Understand the music, but at the same time offer suggestions about what other possibilities the music has.

So, if Mark Corroto feels that an acoustic bass might have been better in a particular situation, maybe he is only pointing out a possiblity, not slamming electric bass players outright.

[ecohouse]

I also agree that writers and musicians need to work together. It was just one person's opinion about a certain situation. How much relevance his critique carried would depend on what the listener is interested in.

If a person wants to buy a CD from an artist it is pretty rare that they decide not to purchase it based on a critic's point of view.

Every review isn't going to be complimentary and if someone can't take being criticizied then they are in the wrong business.

Mr. Silver sounds like he has been stuck doing too many club dates or cruise ships.

Maybe he was just having a bad day!!

[Nils]

Originally posted by valo

Here is where critics have to performa balancing act: Understand the music, but at the same time offer suggestions about what other possibilities the music has.


and that's not a simple thing. one question that reviewers face all the time is what aspects of the music, whether comparatively exciting or not, deserve attention. true masterpieces are extremely rare. all the rest have points of great strength and also points of vulnerability.

i think it's an easy temptation to constantly praise when you're an inexperienced writer. it's so much easier to be enthusiastic than to point out flaws. it's usually more fun to write positively. you can publicly celebrate what you privately celebrated, transmitting the party without any outright dishonesty. that enthusiasm can overwhelm things to the point where the actual meat of the music, the specific details that make it unique, get lost in superlatives.

of course, as the message becomes more balanced, it becomes important to identify flaws as well as strengths. this is where things can get ugly, because not too many people are all that excited to hear about their own flaws. if they hear about the same alleged flaws long enough, it might just make them mad. best way to handle this is (respect: always) to lay out the assumptions at play behind the opinion, then directly express that opinion. context is everything.

n

[joesilver]

Nils, you make some valid points. I apologize if I gave the impression that I was picking on Mark Corroto in particular, or the writing staff of AAJ, or music writers in general.

However, it is precisely the fact that Mark's remark about Anthony Jackson's electric bass was parenthetical that disturbed me. Among music writers, musicians, and music listeners, it seems to be taken for granted — as a truism, even — that the electric bass is not a suitable instrument for jazz. Mark did not even seem to feel the need to defend his statement; it is as if he was winking at his reading audience, implying, "Hey, we all agree on this, don't we?" Maybe I seem paranoid, but I've seen this attitude all too often, among writers, players and fans alike. It's a cliché that perpetuates itself.

I know that music writers and musicians need each other, and are on the same team, so to speak. However, both groups seem steeped in a certain orthodoxy with regard to jazz instrumentation and other aspects of the music. This musical conservatism seems to have become more prevalent since the rise of the Marsalises in the '80s, although I certainly don't put all the blame on them. It's possible that jazz was already nearing the end of its natural life cycle anyway, and it was inevitable that it begin to become more stylized and self-referential.

By the way, in case I wasn't clear on this from the outset, I have no doubt that Anthony Jackson will be remembered long after I am. Heck, I don't even play music any more! This illustrates my point perfectly: Jackson is a creative artist. It doesn't matter what a writer has to say about him, or even if that writer chooses to dismiss blithely the instrument he plays. His work will still continue to provide inspiration and enjoyment to many.

- Joe "Joel" Silver

[Pharaohrock]

Interesting to me that no one has bothered to actually discuss this record and whether the comment about "I could have done without the electric bass" had any validity in the context of the music.

I have to say that for anyone familiar with Michel Petrucciani, there's a sound he was going after when using an electric bass that you can't get with an upright. He wanted a quicker, punchier, and yes, forgive the man- a little "slicker" sound. You can hear the same group sound on this disc elsewhere in his discography. Check Blue Note: "Music." for a good example.

In any event, I'm confident that whether one likes electric bass or not, that Michel having an electric bass in his trio was not an accident and was a rather intended move towards a desired sound. What Mark Corroto was taking issue with in my belief was not electric bass in the context of any piano trio, but moreover the sound of that particular trio OF WHICH electric bass was an integral part of. Put an acoustic bass against the kind of passages Michel played and it would not sound nearly as tight as it did. Not because an acoustic bass couldn't "keep up" but because Michel was playing TO the sound of that electric bass, not an acoustic bass. Steve Gadd was simiilarly tapped into a relationship with the bassist that would be different were it an acoustic bass.

It's called a group dynamic. In a really tight band (which that clearly was) you can't take away a "part" without substantially altering the whole. Listen to the record and hear what I'm talking about.

[joesilver]

I confess I've only heard one track from this album, on an Internet radio station. Needless to say, the "electrified bass" didn't bother me at all! I do agree that in this group, as in other piano trios (Michel Camilo's ensemble comes to mind), a good electric bass player such as Anthony Jackson fits in just fine, and even adds a dimension that is not present in a conventional piano-acoustic bass-drums trio.

I've heard Camilo twice in a live setting. Both times he had an upright bassist rather than electric. I was actually disappointed that Anthony Jackson wasn't there, as I believe his sound is an integral part of Camilo's music. However, if I had been reviewing these performances, I wouldn't have simply written dismissively, "I could have done without the acoustified bass!" :)

[bubber]

The essence of the question is that they are two different instruments. And when PRock says the music on the Petrucciani record in question is made for a group with electric bass - the reverse will be the case with the music of Frank Wess (who was mentioned earlier on this thread as a frustating example of not accepting electric bass in his band).

Then you have electric Steve Swallow and the acoustics in EST and Bad Plus complicating the matter a little.

But anyhow, they are different instruments, and basically an electric would fit Lester Young the same way Pops Foster would fit
Headhunters.

[joesilver]

Originally posted by bubber
...the reverse will be the case with the music of Frank Wess (who was mentioned earlier on this thread as a frustating example of not accepting electric bass in his band).

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00004YC1S/qid%3D1080251987/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-2869387-4824966

(Mark Egan is featured on this Frank Wess album, playing electric bass.)


But anyhow, they are different instruments, and basically an electric would fit Lester Young the same way Pops Foster would fit
Headhunters.

Again, only because Pres' career was well under way before the electric bass came on the scene, IMHO. I believe Pres and the beboppers would have totally dug the electric bass, and made it a standard element in their ensembles, had it been marketed ten or so years earlier, and had a dynamic figure come along and embraced it the way Charlie Christian embraced the electric guitar.

I also stand by my belief that the electric bass can "do" jazz far more convincingly and unobtrusively than the upright can "do" rock and R&B - such revisionist efforts as Steve Gadd's "The Gadd Gang" (which featured Eddie Gomez adding his acoustic bass to rock, R&B and blues tunes) notwithstanding. It's simply a more versatile instrument. However, I concede that this is only my opinion — and admittedly a distinctly minority opinion at that, among jazz listeners, players, and writers.

[bubber]

I doubt Lester Young and his contemporaries would have embraced the electric bass - there obviously is a reason why younger musicians inspired by him (Scott Hamilton, Harry Allen, I might add Mark Turner even if he's more Lester through Warne Marsh) etc, who actually live and play in the era of the electric, scarcely use it. (Like Frank Wess, even if it has happened occasionally, but I firmly believe he prefers the acoustic.)

I guess we'll never agree on this, as long as I'm quite convinced that for some music, the sound of an acoustic bass is more appropriate than an electric. That leaves, however, wide open areas in jazz where the electric fits in. I think it would be wise to develope the instrument within those contexts, instead of trying to integrate it in more "traditional" settings.

[joesilver]

Originally posted by bubber
I doubt Lester Young and his contemporaries would have embraced the electric bass - there obviously is a reason why younger musicians inspired by him (Scott Hamilton, Harry Allen, I might add Mark Turner even if he's more Lester through Warne Marsh) etc, who actually live and play in the era of the electric, scarcely use it.
The reason, I believe, is that musicians such as Scott Hamilton, fine players though they may be, are paying homage to an earlier era in jazz history, and feel a need to recreate it down to the last detail, including the exclusion of the electric bass. I don't think anyone would claim that Scott is an original or innovative musical voice.

On the other hand Sonny Rollins, for example, is considered an original voice by many - and he's been using electric bass in his band for some thirty-odd years. In fact, the period in which he's used electric bass is now considerably longer than the period during which he used the upright bass. The difference is that Sonny is his own man, beholden to no "style," immune to peer pressure.

Pres was at least as much of an iconoclast in his day as Sonny later was. During his tenure with the Fletcher Henderson band, he was ostracized by his bandmates for not playing like his predecessor, Coleman Hawkins. Henderson's wife even forced Pres to listen to Hawk's recordings in an effort to "convert" him. Pres was insistent on playing his own way, though, even though it ultimately cost him his gig with Henderson. He perservered, and his style was eventually admired and imitated by many.

This is why I believe Pres was forward-thinking enough to have championed the electric bass, much as Lionel Hampton did in the early '50s. It wouldn't even have occurred to him to say something like, "This instrument doesn't fit the jazz tradition." The very idea of Lester Young even deferring to something like a "jazz tradition" is ludicrous! Pres simply played his music the way he felt it, just as Sonny Rollins has done for the past half-century.

[Continued in next post]

[joesilver]

Originally posted by bubber
That leaves, however, wide open areas in jazz where the electric fits in. I think it would be wise to develope the instrument within those contexts, instead of trying to integrate it in more "traditional" settings.
So let's all stick to the "rules" and we'll all get along fine, eh? No coloring outside the lines? Is this what jazz is all about in 2003?

[bubber]

I'm all for breaking the rules, but I don't find it interesting breaking the rules just for the sake of breaking them.

BTW, Rollins is an interesting case, using an electric bassists who used to play acoustic. I always wondered why, and I have been thinking that maybe it has something to do with his carribean background. I have to admit, though, that I miss the acoustic sound, especially on open ballads. When playing faster tunes, escpecially those with a more complicated multirhythmic foundation, I find the electric more than acceptable.

What interests me most, however, is the question of the possibillities given to the acoustic bass combined with modern technology - like we hear it in EST a.o. It occurs to me that we might see a developement towards a situation where the acoustic can do much of what the electric can, as well as its traditional function.

[joesilver]

For some reason, a post that I submitted to this thread some months ago has disappeared. In that post, I commented on bassist Anthony Jackson, and specifically on his performance on a Michel Camilo album titled One More Once.

The point of my statement was that Jackson not only is fully competent to play jazz (not just "jazz fusion"), but is an exceptional performer whose playing would be an asset to any jazz recording - which makes it all the more sad that he is so seldom called upon to be a sideman on jazz albums. This is not surprising, though, considering the currently prevailing "upright bass snobbery" of the jazz establishment. We can only hope that the pendulum swings back the other way while we are still fortunate enough to have Anthony Jackson and other bassists of his caliber among us and active.

[joesilver]

I saw Sonny Rollins at a free outdoor concert at Lincoln Center last week. The man still sounds great at 73. However, I have to admit that I found Bob Cranshaw's electric bass to be distracting at times.

It is important to note, though, that it is not anything inherent in the instrument itself that bothered me; rather, it's the way Cranshaw plays it. Frankly, I find his playing stiff, and his tone obtrusive and strident. Moreover, at this particular performance I heard him play some wrong notes - most obviously on some minor chords, where he would play the major third of the chord! It is my opinion that Cranshaw sounds better on the upright bass than on the electric - perhaps because of something inherent in the instrument or his approach to it, but more likely because the electric bass produces a more precise, focused pitch, and is therefore less forgiving of flaws in execution and (on fretless bass) intonation.

Unfortunately, there are undoubtedly listeners (Gary Giddins again comes to mind) who will probably never listen to electric bass unless it's being played by Cranshaw or one of a small handful of players who are grudgingly tolerated in the jazz world. They hear electric bass once a year or so on a Sonny Rollins CD or at a concert, and think this is what all electric bass players sound like.

Not to pick on Cranshaw, who has demonstrated on albums such as Rollins' "The Bridge" that he's a fine musician, but I can think of several electric bassists who could play in a jazz context and sound much better - Steve Swallow, Alain Caron, Jimmy Haslip, James Genus, Gerald Veasley, Anthony Jackson...