The record changer (Jan-Dec 1944)

The Record Changer, October 1944 JAZZ CRITIC LOOKS AT ANTHROPOLOGIST (Continued from page ) a man. There are many important stages it must go through before becoming that man. So it is with music. We cannot compare the various stages or expect one to conform with the other. The life span of art, however, is so long that most people consider the product of the various stages as different species. There are those who would like to see one emulate the other. There are those who frown at a natural growth. Mr. Borneman says that "musical susceptibility, however profound, is no test of literate judgment. Jazz can be played without academic knowledge of music but it can never be understood without some musical literacy." I agree that ,the "putting of jazz into its natural perspective" does need a wider knowledge of music, but that jazz cannot be understood without this knowledge I do not agree. He says : "What sounds good to you is not necessarily good" of its own standard." (Italics mine.) What "sounds good" is by its own standard good. That is, if we are sensitive to the musical art in question. "Good" as part of musical history is something else. It seems to me that for any of us the test of "sounding good" is all we can go by. Not the "rational act" as Mr. Borneman says. If a person is cultured in more than one species of music, he cam compare the "sounding good" of one kind to another. Doing this he acquires perspective, but a further widening of knowledge does not become the "rational act." Mr. Borneman seems peeved at the seemingly naive enthusiasm of the jazz fans. Their passion for short-lived aspects of jazz is sometimes disconcerting and trying, but to dismiss their judgments is dangerous. It is about as logical as dismissing the African's likes or dislikes— the only basis of his creation and of his audience — because he lacks the historical view of music, and because he cannot, as Mr. Borneman would say, "rationalize." But if we keep acquiring these various cultural patterns, until the over-all aspects of one can be compared to the over-all aspects of another, I think we do reach a horizon which those in any one culture do not enjoy. There is a limit even to this, however, since the meaning of music, for any one of us, is not reached in a day. The more we skip about, the less we shall understand of each. We cannot cram in art. Mr. Borneman says that jazz is not classical music, and again he uses the term "symphonic" as synonymous with classical. He also says that "the whole sense and purpose of jazz rests in this extraordinary ability of a group of musicians to improvise complex rhythmical and melodic counterpoint on a simple harmonic basis." I am afraid that this is how Mr. Borneman understands jazz. Nor is it at all surprising that for him the careful depositing of huge symphonies by "long hairs" is "classical music." This is the great fallacy into which all jazz critics fall. Any music that is to reach the proportions that our instrumental symphonies have attained must go through what jazz is going through today. In an article of mine published in Hound and Horn (Summer, 1934) I quoted from a letter written by a certain Andre Maugars in 1639 upon the occasion of a visit to Rome. 1 will quote him again.* * Vide, Arnold Dolmetsch's "The Interpretations of the Music of the XVIIth and XVJUth Centuries." "1 will describe to you the most celebrated and most excellent concert which I have heard. . . . As to the instrumental music, it was composed of an organ, a large harpsichord, two or three archlutes, an Archiviole-da-Lyra and two or three violins . . . Now a violin played alone to the organ, then another answered ; another time all three played together different parts, then all the instruments went together. Now an archlute made a thousand divisions on ten or twelve notes each of five or six bars length, then the others did the same in a different way. I remember that a violin played in the true chromatic mode and although it seemed harsh to my ears at first, I nevertheless got used to this novelty and took extreme pleasure in it. But above all the great Frescobaldi exhibited thousands of inventions on his harpsichord, the organ always playing the ground. It is not without cause that the famous organist of St. Peter has acquired such a reputation in Europe, for although his published compositions are witnesses to his genius, yet to judge of his profound learning, you must hear him improvise." I see no difference between this and what our jazz musicians are doing. We see the ability of Frescobaldi as improvisor and Frescobaldi's writings compared by a man of that day. We can be sure that what was improvised on that occasion differed in no way from what Frescobaldi may have turned out on paper in his study. There need be no real difference between improvisation and notated music. After a time a difference 74