+Seraphim (seraphimsigrist) wrote,

Dave Brubek. and the Pope. and intellectuals.

Memory Eternal to the great Dave Brubeck, or in terms of his tradition
Lux Perpetua Luceat Ei! Dave was asked to compose a Mass in 1978 and in
the process he left out the Our Father not being familiar with the
structure , then he dreamed about the Our Father and wrote it in and went
on to be asked, by the Pope, to compose something to the words 'Thou art
Peter'. He dreamed the music and wrote it and became Christian at this
time and while he hesitates to say the dreams were divine intervention
he said "they sure messed with my sleep.'

Now a question for those knowledgeable and or of an age to deal with it.
It is my impression that in the Beatnik days into and through the 60s
there was a style of jazz more patronized by intellectuals than anything
today(Brubeck, MJQ,Bird,Thelonius Monk, Coltrane I guess,Gunther Schuller,
Stan Kenton? anyway like that) now I am thinking it is not now so much the
case, is this correct? perhaps there is less sense of a hip intellectual
class , indeed maybe less sense of intellectuals as a class, but also less
sense jazz as being on the edge for creative people and a part of the kit
of a conoiseur? anyhow I never knew anything about jazz and dont today but
thought those musicians all worth being aware of and perhaps of them all
enjoyed Brubek most...
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 



December 6 2012, 18:05:01 UTC 2 years ago Edited:  December 6 2012, 18:07:42 UTC

For certain people, Vladyka, being a jazz connaissieur still is being hip, or, at least, different - as this music certainly requires more "listening training" to be fully appreciated, some people still feel different because they are, in fact, different, at least to the extent of being trained to appreciate this music (which, en masse, is definitely not springing right into their ear smoothly and comfortably, as more poppish styles do, and requires their attention and involvement as listeners - refuses to stay in the background, so to say; although even in jazz, there is a poppish style, called smooth jazz.) Brubeck's greatest gift was to be simultaneously very accessible and quite musically advanced, without giving up either side. (Although with his classic 1950s-1960s quartet, that was more saxophonist Paul Desmond's achievenment than Brubeck's, as Desmond's performance style, and his very sound, was very warm, welcoming, and almost never disturbing, which was not necessarily the case with Dave's own performance style: he could be harsh, not easy to follow, or even outright complex, if he felt like it.) Brubeck was one of the first jazz musicians I really dug when I was a teenager; the others, like the spiritually mind-blowing Coltrane or tragically extatic Eric Dolphy (or sarcastically humorous Monk, for that matter,) came much later.

But I do not think that these days, listening to jazz music as simply equates to being hip as it used to be back then. I know many people who, at least on the outside, look exceedingly square and still appreciate jazz music (and sometimes know it very well,) and many people who are indeed hip (whatever that means these days) and do not dig jazz, even in the simple forms of Louis Armstrong's most "pop" recordings, leave alone in the form of the works by the 2000s generation of young improvisers (many of whom stand directly on the shoulders of Coltrane, Monk, Dolphy and - to an extent - Brubeck.)

Sorry for this lengthy essay, this music just happened to be the subject of my work for the last 18 years (I am a music journalist.)


December 6 2012, 18:16:03 UTC 2 years ago

thank you! I am going to put this over your name
as a comment on my facebook site which is more
or less parallel.