I’ve rarely seen such poor generalization in an article that could have been more considerate of its subject and those who have written about it. Any number of writers, myself included, have pointed to certain works of Tristano, Chico Hamilton and Shorty Rogers as building blocks of free jazz, yet Gridley makes it appear as if he’s the first writer to acknowledge the contributions of these musicians. Likewise, many jazz journalists know about Ornette’s studies of Bird and Ayler’s ignorance of functional music theory and have written lucidly about them. I have to disagree with Royal Stokes’ notion that this represents “exhaustive research”. In fact, it seems like a lot of skimming for print-bites that would defend Gridley’s points.

Lyn Horton is correct that Gridley misses the pure spirit and soul of free jazz with his academic dissection and self-serving “researchiness” (apologies to Stephen Colbert). Our job as music journalists is hard enough; I’m again reminded of Zappa’s comment that “writing about music is like dancing about architecture”. That becomes so much truer when considering something as personal as free jazz, and this article ignores that most important element in trying to address one single factor in the music’s development.

There are uncountable sources for how music evolves, not all technical, not all spiritual, not all psychological, not all cultural, not all universal. No one can be all inclusive: it is impossible. Ask John Szwed.

Imposing the idea of cause and effect on any phenomenon automatically pigeonholes it and puts that phenomenon in a vacuum, where many cause and effect situations have been discovered…in a vacuum. It is my belief that what people do not understand, they justify with an easily identifiable rationale. Students often do not have the consciousness to distinguish between rationale and the truth.

“Free Jazz” and “avant-garde” are terms to which musicians bear no relation and are used for the purpose of writing and labeling so that the general public can decide to walk through the door to the music. If anything, these terms have prevented the public often from getting to the music made by some of the most talented musicians ever.

If any term can be assigned to musicians, it is “feeling.” Innumerable times, feeling is a word that comes freely out of the mouths of musicians to describe what they do through writing and interviews.

So Gridley has conformed with academic pursuit by putting together an article that is airtight, well-documented, everything any student of the music could ask for. He untangles what he intends to untangle. But what he misses is alighting on the sheer poetry of music. And for all poetry, there is a muse. That muse is forever mysterious, and incomprehensible, allows music to “become itself” even before it is heard. When it is heard, it is up for grabs, and sometimes, meets its ruin, because the people who are responsible for revealing it to the world external to the musician have another motive besides the music. One that usually rubs against the music’s essence.

It is very important to remember that music tells stories: the musical language used is based on how regulated or not the musician is. The stories told at any time, at any performance, may have the same themes, but they are never told the same way. If anything, musicians are desperately trying to break away from all that is denigrating and lock into a zone that knows no boundaries.

This is one of the most important essays on jazz history and jazz criticism that I have read in a long time. Professor Gridley’s conclusions, based on exhaustive research, seem irrefutable.

The only thing I would add is that many styles of jazz, as they respectively came into existence since the art form’s beginnings, were avant-garde. Buddy Bolden was avant-garde, Jelly Roll Morton was avant-garde, Louis Armstrong was avant-garde, Bix Beiderbecke was avant-garde, Duke Ellington was avant-garde, Charlie Parker was avant-garde, and so forth and so on to the present-day young innovators.

W. Royal Stokes
wroyalstokes@gmail.com
http://www.wroyalstokes.com