It must be awful to get hit with the post-[genre] tag. Post-rock, post-dubstep, post-jazz... For me, at least, it often has these awful, obfuscating overtones: pretension, primarily- of a similar order to 'prog' experimentalism; 'artiness' of the very worst kind (plus: postmodernism, anyone?!). Having said that, I think it's basically harmless- a helpful shorthand for disparate musicians (c.f. all the interesting things going on at Hotflush, Hyperdub et al., that're under the post-dubstep moniker) but excessive focus upon genre, and tiny distinctions therein, just seem to distract from the music itself. It's tricky, sure- in saying this, I know I'm open to the charge that, as I said, genre tags exist to help, to group- and rejecting them kind of misses their point, etc. etc. It's a battlefield, and I still don't know where I stand.
This all might seem irrelevant, but stay with me- because this conflict is kind of played out within a group I've recently gotten rather interested in: the quintet Polar Bear, who played Marlborough jazz festival last weekend. Comprised of two alto saxes, double bass, a guy playing guitar, "electronics" and balloons, and one absolute powerhouse of a drummer (in the form of the impressively-haired Seb Rochford) they made for an electrifying live show: straight-up jazz soloing mixed with looped sax drones, elements of ambient music and passages closer to minimalism. And since looking them up I've discovered they, along with contempories Portico Quartet (also fantastic, by the way, and well worth your time- recent album Isla especially) have been labeled as 'post-jazz'.
So, you see the first paragraph did have a point. And in Polar Bear's case (and that of sister group, Acoustic Ladyland, and most likely for many others) the 'post-' tag can be a blanket form of derogation, a way of dismissing their music. (See: this interview with Portico Quartet, fourth paragraph from the end.) It's a shame, really- because Polar Bear, especially live, is invigorating. They're exciting, unashamedly cerebral and just joyous, and most definitely not tied to a specific genre- which makes John Fordham's comments all the more puzzling. Inevitably, it seems to come down to a matter of perspective: Fordham holds "free assosciative playing" (and by extension, some kind of "pure", or perhaps "freely expressive" jazz) sacrosanct, whereas I suppose I'm less keen to build up musical barriers. I mean, the exciting thing about these groups is that they do take influence from bands like Deerhoof or, say, Faust. Cross-pollination is good: to keep plowing away in one's own niche (as it were...) whilst avoiding all else seems short-sighted. And it's not like their music isn't capable of evoking emotion, which Fordham seems to be implying. Happy For You, for instance, is as the title suggests: saxes tumble over each other (calling to mind, weirdly, barely-knowns Sweep the Leg Johnny, but I digress) Rochford's drums alternately skitter and pound, and it's (just) held together by Leafcutter John's guitar and the stellar double-bass work of Tom Herbert. And this is just one representative track among many. Seriously, check them out. Rochford himself sums up rather neatly: "[M]y main aim is to make music that sounds new and has feeling." (Emphasis mine.)
So, there you have it. In with newness, in with emotion, and out with genre tags. Mostly...
One further treat: a mixtape made by the aforeloved Seb Rochford. If the first four minutes annoy, just stick with it- there's some great tracks in there, especially a Cooly G tune I hadn't previously heard, and Madlib-produced Revelations, from Mos Def's excellent The Ecstatic.
This all might seem irrelevant, but stay with me- because this conflict is kind of played out within a group I've recently gotten rather interested in: the quintet Polar Bear, who played Marlborough jazz festival last weekend. Comprised of two alto saxes, double bass, a guy playing guitar, "electronics" and balloons, and one absolute powerhouse of a drummer (in the form of the impressively-haired Seb Rochford) they made for an electrifying live show: straight-up jazz soloing mixed with looped sax drones, elements of ambient music and passages closer to minimalism. And since looking them up I've discovered they, along with contempories Portico Quartet (also fantastic, by the way, and well worth your time- recent album Isla especially) have been labeled as 'post-jazz'.
So, you see the first paragraph did have a point. And in Polar Bear's case (and that of sister group, Acoustic Ladyland, and most likely for many others) the 'post-' tag can be a blanket form of derogation, a way of dismissing their music. (See: this interview with Portico Quartet, fourth paragraph from the end.) It's a shame, really- because Polar Bear, especially live, is invigorating. They're exciting, unashamedly cerebral and just joyous, and most definitely not tied to a specific genre- which makes John Fordham's comments all the more puzzling. Inevitably, it seems to come down to a matter of perspective: Fordham holds "free assosciative playing" (and by extension, some kind of "pure", or perhaps "freely expressive" jazz) sacrosanct, whereas I suppose I'm less keen to build up musical barriers. I mean, the exciting thing about these groups is that they do take influence from bands like Deerhoof or, say, Faust. Cross-pollination is good: to keep plowing away in one's own niche (as it were...) whilst avoiding all else seems short-sighted. And it's not like their music isn't capable of evoking emotion, which Fordham seems to be implying. Happy For You, for instance, is as the title suggests: saxes tumble over each other (calling to mind, weirdly, barely-knowns Sweep the Leg Johnny, but I digress) Rochford's drums alternately skitter and pound, and it's (just) held together by Leafcutter John's guitar and the stellar double-bass work of Tom Herbert. And this is just one representative track among many. Seriously, check them out. Rochford himself sums up rather neatly: "[M]y main aim is to make music that sounds new and has feeling." (Emphasis mine.)
So, there you have it. In with newness, in with emotion, and out with genre tags. Mostly...
One further treat: a mixtape made by the aforeloved Seb Rochford. If the first four minutes annoy, just stick with it- there's some great tracks in there, especially a Cooly G tune I hadn't previously heard, and Madlib-produced Revelations, from Mos Def's excellent The Ecstatic.
Seb Rochford (Polar Bear) mixtape by theleaflabel
_____________
BOOKS.
So, in an only-just-almost-not-quite segue, the night before last's reading was Henry James' The Turn Of The Screw, which was... interesting. I say almost related, because James's twist on the ghost tale apparently still divides critics- some say she imagines the ghosts, others say they're really there, blah blah etcetera- you get the general idea. James apparently presaged the 20th Century's passion for more psychology-based horror, so you could say it's post-trad-ghost stories! Oh what a link... Anyway, this is all well and good, except his prose can occasionally be ornate to the point of silliness: I don't want or need four words intensifying and qualifying the heroine's state of mind. It just... distracts. It's so short it isn't really a problem, and it's probably a contextual, everyone-did-it thing, but still- concision is the key, and so ends this review.
No comments:
Post a Comment