JAZZBONOTES RECOMMENDED RECORDING
Rating: 
It’s funny that no matter what band Charles Mingus happens to be fielding, matter what the year, the music has a similar feel. A large part of that of course is that the tunes and arrangements are written by Mingus, and the rhythm section of Mingus’ muscular bass and Dannie Richmond’s shape-shifting drums remains a constant, but it’s more than that.
What’s striking is that Mingus’ conception of arrangement, which is based on telling and showing his players what he wants, rather than giving them specific notation, and the way he conducts from the bass chair, forces the instrumentalists to behave in an elastic way that’s instantly recognizable.
And so it is with the music on Changes One, from the last of Mingus’ great bands, completed by Jack Walrath on trumpet, George Adams on tenor (and vocals), and pianist Don Pullen.
Sue’s Changes is typical Mingus. The tune starts out with a shambling swing before organically disintegrating into free playing. Then we get a brief ballad episode before we head back into swing, which slows down again until the band drops out, allowing for a romantically rubato solo from Don Pullen on piano. When the swing returns, Pullen heads almost into Cecil Taylor pointillisms, playing the keyboard with his elbow and other avant guarde flourishes. When it’s George Adams’ turn, he too starts in ballad territory, almost like Ben Webster, having a romantic rubato solo, before heading into more modern, frenetic territory. And so it goes.
Listening to Changes One, I caught myself wondering, “Why is it that I dig what Mingus is doing here and I was so annoyed by Taylor Eigsti?” I know that seems like a non sequitur, but it happens that I caught pianist Eigsti at a performance at the Jazzschool back in April (you can check out the review here), and he has a stylistic fluidity in his arrangements that is similar in some ways to what Mingus is doing here. Comparing Mingus’ and Eigsti’s approaches to arrangement is instructive:
- In any one composition, Mingus might switch between swing, ballad, and avant guarde forms. He might play with tempo and dynamics as well. But that’s still only five things, and he’s staying within the jazz tradition. Taylor Eigsti manages to cram dozens of styles into an arrangement, and he’ll include harmony and pianistic devices from the classical arena as well. It’s just too much to process.
- Mingus does us the kindness of repeating the transitions, so that even though we’re passing through a good portion of jazz history through the performance, there’s a chance to check out the pattern a second time and even a third time. Repetition is a wise compositional and arranging method to use when you’re cramming together disparate elements. Eigsti, on the other hand, tends not to repeat anything. He might introduce a time signature like 15/16 for half a dozen bars, only to abandon it.
- Mingus allows time for any one section to develop. Often times, you barely have time to identify what technique Eigsti is using before he moves on to the next one.
The result is that Mingus’ approach to arrangement and composition, while challenging and nourishing, still has stylistic integrity. He manages to forge connections between the different eras of jazz, so there is a sense of continuity. With Eigsti, it’s all a hodgepodge.
Devil’s Blues might be a little harder for some listeners to swallow because of George Adams’ vocal, which is a bit of a put-on. As we all know, audiences tend to like vocalists, and Mingus thought that he’d like to have a number with vocals, so he came up with Devil’s Blues. The tune starts with a typically penetrating bass solo from Mingus before shifting into a blues-drenched groove. Adams’ vocal is rambling and coarse, but authentically bluesy, at least until he starts ends his phrases with screeches, which cracked me up at first, but got old kind of fast. Jack Walrath has a short and tasty trumpet solo utilizing a plunger, which has almost a New Orleans flavor. Pianist Don Pullen demonstrates his knowledge of barrelhouse blues.
The last tune of the set, Duke Ellington’s Sound Of Love, was written shortly after the great man passed away. Mingus skillfully transmutes many of Ellington’s compositional devices into an effective homage that sounds both like Duke and Mingus. Like Ellington himself, the melody and changes are sweet, but have an authority that comes from an encyclopedic understanding of the music. Similarly, the performance of the band is robust and tender at the same time.
Changes One, like it’s companion piece, Changes Two, would be the last time Mingus operated at full strength as a composer and arranger.
If you found this post helpful, share it by clicking on one of these icons!
Related posts:
- Changes Two - Charles Mingus
- Modern Jazz Symposium - Charles Mingus
- Mingus At Antibes - Charles Mingus
- Three Or Four Shades Of Blues - Charles Mingus
- Mingus Ah Um - Charles Mingus
Comments
This entry was posted on Saturday, May 2nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm and is filed under 1970s, Avant-Guarde, Bebop, Free Jazz, Post Bop, Recommended, Reviews, Soul Jazz, Trad Jazz, Vocals. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Hi there - this is me, Taylor Eigsti, writing this.
This is the only time in my life that I’m going to do this. I’ll probably also post this on my website.
Just because I have 10 spare minutes and a strong desire to do something therapeutic, I need to comment on this.
I stumbled on this review randomly, and since I’m one of the people referenced repeatedly, I figure I have a right to respond to some of this.
I feel it necessary to point out that the only things that Michael Kydonieus knows about me or my music are what he stumbled into a few weeks ago at the Jazzschool, a performance venue in Berkeley, CA. The only things I know about him are that he’s not a fan.
This was not the first time I’ve gotten a bad review, and certainly not the last - I’m not writing out of shock or defense. I’m bored off my ass, and I’m actually going to throw in my two cents for once. And I have never met Kydonieus, so I dont really care what he thinks of me (he mentioned that he thought I was humble - I like to think that I am, although I’m sure my response here will make him think otherwise…).
Kydonieus felt compelled to write a rather awful review of my show, dwelling on the fact that I chose to take an approach that was based on tangental improvisations, rather than limit the number of ideas played and develop each one further.
He has some valid points in his review of my show, and I always take musical advice seriously. I had to teach a 3-hour masterclass, and had about 4 cups of coffee that day, and I decided that the most authentic way to play in that particular concert would be to play what I was feeling. And that was **skittish**.
If I’m feeling depressed, I play through that. If I’m feeling angry, I try to channel that too. I feel it is worthwhile for all musicians to be ok with playing their current emotions. So I’m abundantly aware of my original intentions to try to channel that particular emotion. The other important part of performing, I believe, is to be able to read an audience and go with the emotions that they are throwing into the picture. I felt particularly attached to this audience (Kydonieus does point out that he was practically the only one on the room who wasn’t into it), and I was having fun with what felt like very positive vibes coming from the audience there. The most important thing to remember when attending a concert, is that ideally, the music will be *ENTIRELY DIFFERENT* each time, and will express a different mood.
Now, Kydonieus has decided to make ridiculous comparisons between ONE set of music by coffee-crazed me, and an entire album by Charles Mingus, jazz legend.
He writes:
” In any one composition, Mingus might switch between swing, ballad, and avant guarde forms. He might play with tempo and dynamics as well. But that’s still only five things, and he’s staying within the jazz tradition. ”
I agree with that. Those are malleable elements that most musicians attempt to use within arrangements in an interesting way.
He continues:
“>i>Taylor Eigsti manages to cram dozens of styles into an arrangement, and he’ll include harmony and pianistic devices from the classical arena as well. It’s just too much to process.
If I could possibly learn how to employ 12 or more stylistic elements within an arrangement, I would. I apparently created that impression for Mr. Kydonieus, and so that’s pretty awesome. I mean, 12 styles PLUS “harmony and pianistic devices from the classical arena” as well!! You’re right, I should stop listening to anything other than jazz music to get my influences.
Kydonieus also continually states that I played part of Caravan in the “arcane time signature of 15/16″.
The fact that Kydonieus couldn’t follow a simple 5-over-4 pattern (the whole tune’s in 4/4 - there’s a line over it at one point that is in 5/4, while the song stays in time) says more about his musicianship than mine. If you’re going to knock me for playing a section in an odd time signature, I would advise you to come up and ask me if that actually in fact ever happened. I rarely play music in 15/16, because I dont hear a lot of ideas in that time signature, although I love music that is in adventurous time signatures. Its a simple error on his part, although he refers to it proudly many times.
He also writes as a comparison between a record by one of the greatest bass players ever, and one set of music by a 24-year old: “The result is that Mingus’ approach to arrangement and composition, while challenging and nourishing, still has stylistic integrity. He manages to forge connections between the different eras of jazz, so there is a sense of continuity. With Eigsti, it’s all a hodgepodge.”
My point in writing, is that there are MUCH better ways to intelligently “review” a Charles Mingus album than to say that his arrangement approach is more cohesive than Taylor Eigsti’s set at the Jazzschool. This is like comparing a great novel by one of the greatest authors in history to a short speech at a community theater by a young poet. I think with more listening and playing experience (Anyone know if he plays an instrument?), Kydonieus will find other ways to enjoy listening to music rather than poorly construct correlations between Bay Area Jazzschool shows and historic jazz records.
Musicians, if you go to a concert, and you feel like you’re the only one who doesn’t like it, then my recommendation would be to incorporate what you learned from not enjoying it into your own approach musically. This is how we develop as musicians.
There’s about as much point in giving my concert a “2-star” rating (on the Kydonieus Irrelevant Standard Star Measurement Yapping Abundantly Stupid System, otherwise known as “KISSMYASS”), as giving Charles Mingus a 3-star review in ANY ratings system. Music is subjective. Let people play the music, let people enjoy the music, and if you can’t count to 4, dont write about time signatures.
Thanks for your time,
Taylor Eigsti
Thanks for writing, Mr. Eigsti.
No doubt I made a mistake in my counting, in reference to the 15/16 time signature. I’d be the first to admit that I’m not much of a musician. And I certainly have no problems with you criticizing me as a critic. Turnabout is fair play, after all.
And I think it would be a mistake to say that I’m not a fan of you. It would be more accurate to say that I didn’t much enjoy this particular concert. Also, I made plenty of criticisms, but I also had complimentary things to say. (”His phrasing throughout was adroit and original, but easy to follow,” from my review of Mr. Eigsti’s performance at the Jazzschool.)
I’m grateful that you pointed out that you were hypercaffeinated and feeling skittish, and played through those feelings for the set. That makes complete sense to me, and actually reflects the content of my review.
Obviously, you’re upset with what I had to say, but I never meant to imply that jazz musicians shouldn’t be influenced by classical music (or any other music for that matter), simply that piling on too many influences on one composition runs the risk of seeming incoherent. Clearly, you disagree with me on that one.
And lastly, it’s true that Mingus was a master musician and you are young and just starting out, and I’m sorry that mentioning you in the same breath as Mingus offended your sensibilities, but I saw a similarity in the way the two of you approach music. And I used that similarity to discuss why Mingus’ approach worked for me.
Clearly, you feel that’s a wrongheaded approach when reviewing someone of Mingus’ stature. Maybe you’re right. I accept the criticism.
However, it seems to me that you’re hostile to the entire idea of music criticism, especially by someone who himself is not a musician, or at least could not make a living as a musician. You’re in good company. Most musicians resent critics. I understand that. Music is basically the soul of a musician coming out of his fingers or mouth, not to mention the result of a whole bunch of training and hard work. Criticizing that feels intensely personal, and must feel especially galling coming from someone whose opinions you don’t respect.
Fair enough. No offense taken. And I apologize for any hurt I caused.
The way I look at it, I’m only a beggar telling other beggars where to get the food. I’m just trying to turn people on to music they might enjoy. Oh, and you’re right of course. Music appreciation is largely subjective. I do my best to describe why I enjoy something or not, and hope that my limited ability to describe something that is largely ineffable is helpful to my readers in some way.
I hope writing your comments was as therapeutic as you’d hoped.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for being receptive to my review of your review. As I wrote, me responding to a review (good or bad) will only happen once, and I did it purely out of personal amusement. (And come on, the KISSMYASS thing is pure comedy gold…)
I’ve definitely had some reviews faaaaar worse than yours! (For instance, I did a big gig at the Montreal Jazz Festival where some guy called me “Liberace for the new Millennium”. That one takes the cake…so far…..)
I got my first bad review at age 18, and that one sucked! It really got to me and I didn’t know how to react. In the nearly 7 years since, I have learned to adapt to a better perspective on reviews in general. It’s one person’s opinion of something, and thus that’s the most it can be taken for. I barely read good or bad ones anymore, and there have been so many reviews either way over the years that I have just stopped noticing almost entirely. I promise you I dont do this to every bad review, and I also can tell you I’m genuinely non-hostile towards critics, and in fact have an affinity towards many of them. Everyone has a right to express themselves and what they are thinking.
Yours caught my eye in particular A) because it was a Jazzschool concert and you may be the only person in history to review a show there, and B) because I found it unnecessary and irrelevant to compare how I played on one singular set (which will be undoubtably worlds different every night), and how Mingus conceptualized an entire album. In my opinion, I felt that there are just a plethora of better ways to make your point than to compare Mingus’s stylistic sensibilities to mine in one particular night. Maybe it was how you constructed your point through making a paragraph of 3 rather nebulous points that decidedly rubbed me the wrong way.
At any rate, I felt inspired to finally play my once-in-a-lifetime card to respond to your review. Most jazz musicians (Joe Zawinul, Nicholas Payton and many others) respond to at least one review in their lifetime, and I guess I chose yours, so I’m sorry to make you the victim of my rebuttal. I do appreciate the compliments imbedded in there, and please understand that I truly do feel you are entitled to enjoy or criticize my music freely, as you interpret it. I only really wanted to write something after reading the *Mingus* review, not mine, because I felt that was a ridiculous comparison. But we all have our opinions, I guess…
Lastly, about my show - you should keep in mind that was a room full of mostly musicians, and I was probably playing to that a tiny bit. The fact that you felt isolated from the “majority opinion” does not mean you’re getting old and feeble-minded. What it does mean, is that you should take your concepts about your musical tastes and preferences and apply it towards becoming better on your instrument. Use the ideas in your head to your advantage. If you claim you are not a working musician, but yet you already understand that it’s important to fully develop individual motifs within an arrangement, then you already are cognizant of certain key aspects to becoming a really good musician. Ironically, I teach students exactly what you criticized me for - bringing out core themes and developing each one more fully through repetition and patience. But to be fair, I do also teach musicians to authentically channel their real emotion at the present moment, and play it. The challenge is to make your emotion enjoyable when it comes out through the instrument. If 98% of the audience is sending you vibes that they are digging it, then you go with that.
What I’m saying is that you could easily develop into a really really good musician, because good musicians are opinionated, aware, and informed. It would even help you enjoy reviewing things more - reviews are always more interesting when they are written by someone who truly understands what’s going on on stage, and the more musical knowledge you can obtain, the more substance you can present in your reviews. Not to mention the fact that you will enjoy music a lot more….
I wish you all the best, and I hope that you have a good journey with music either way.
peace,
Taylor Eigsti
One more comment and then I’ll shut up.
Mr. Eigsti makes a good point when he says “…if you can’t count to four, don’t write about time signatures,” even if he states it in the form of an insult.
Certainly, I knew that the tune was in 4/4. I thought that Eigsti had departed from 4/4 for a couple of bars. I was counting like mad for the 2nd bar, trying to figure out what he was doing, and I guess I counted wrong.
Unfortunately, I didn’t have the luxury of playing the moment back to check myself. I was 75% sure of what the time signature was, but I should have been 100% sure if I was going to write about it as a fact. I won’t make that mistake again.
Instead, I’ll say something like “It sounded to me like Eigsti departed from 4/4 for a couple of bars, maybe some arcane time signature like 15/16, but I didn’t have the luxury of rewinding the tape to make sure, so who knows?”
Receiving criticism gracefully like I’m doing now is a good thing — it will help me do my job better in the future, ultimately allowing me to communicate in a more helpful way to my audience.