Which Waits?

[NoSleep]

Once upon a time I was in a band. And the bass player was obsessed with Primus. So I got to hearin' Tommy The Cat with Tom Waits in it. I ain't done never no how hearda them thar influences he has, no sirree. I just heard the Waits.

He's a gravelly-voiced son of a gun. I loved what he did in Jesus' Blood. I love his love ballads, his romantic side; his weird, offbeat, drunken side; he's humorous without being a comedian and just draws you into his world of leaping shadows.

Beefwhat? Never heard of the dude. Tom Waits is the master! I saw him live in Paris 10 years ago. You're innocent when you dream, when you dream, you're innocent when you dreeeeeeam... Ah, memories.

No Beefheart = No Primus OR Waits = No memories. If you haven't heard then you must.

I think he's trying to say that he likes the music.

I was questioning his view on Beefheart's music.

Being 'avant-garde', or relative to some notional vanguard, is no guarantor of humanity*, at least not in terms of content.

Huh? I was talking about Beefheart's expressiveness and nowt else. We've already agreed that his one avant garde album was Trout Mask Replica and it has plenty of emotional content (just like the ones that followed).

[thugler]

Had a bad start with Waits, when he ruined this, and I've never been able to appreciate him as a singer since. He's a fun actor though, mainly because of his image.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMZVZ5NBkpw&feature=related

Also, I hope somebody here is responsible for this:

Waits is not the problem with that. He's barely in it. The problem is the music lumped clumsily on top of the tramp voice. Waits hardly ruins it.

That isn't true; an acting performance may be that, but many music performers play from the heart; indeed they may not even have a set list when they start the night; you get what comes. All performance isn't an artifice, but some artifice is performance.

Who says a performance cannot be 'from the heart' which is a meaningless term anyways. A setlist is completely irrelevant. A performance is just that, a performance. It's not like they are going to be directly going through what the song is about everytime they sing it. Sure they'll be feeling what it's about, that's what makes it a performance.


As for Beefheart in general, I think he's great. But waits is a cut above in every single way, bar the (at the time) revolutionary aspect of 'trout mask replica'. The aspects he's taken/been influenced by from Beefheart he's improved upon I think.

[NoSleep]

Who says a performance cannot be 'from the heart' which is a meaningless term anyways.

After I said, "That isn't true; an acting performance may be that, but many music performers play from the heart; indeed they may not even have a set list when they start the night; you get what comes. All performance isn't an artifice, but some artifice is performance."

The word performance covers a lot of ground.

A setlist is completely irrelevant.

My point entirely, if you're playing what you feel at the time and NOT going through the usual string of expected hits, etc. Stewart Lee's subject matter for Celebrity Mastermind, Derek Bailey, was not keen on the influence of an audience on his improvisations (he never did "tunes" or repeatable "hits"), preferring the music he made at home without the thoughts that he needed to "perform" something for an audience's expectations. He wasn't keen on making records either (being counter to the point of the uniqueness of an improvisation), but saw the economic necessity for this also. I love Derek Bailey.

A performance is just that, a performance. It's not like they are going to be directly going through what the song is about everytime they sing it. Sure they'll be feeling what it's about, that's what makes it a performance.

Perhaps some performers don't like to act, or feel it's a bit fake to do so. Perhaps this is regarded as less professional or less commercial an approach, but these are the people who are worth coming back to again and again when they perform, as you never know what you might be getting each time.

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

That isn't true; an acting performance may be that, but many music performers play from the heart; indeed they may not even have a set list when they start the night; you get what comes. All performance isn't an artifice, but some artifice is performance.

Removing the set list doesn't remove the artifice. Performance is by definition artificial and premeditated; if it's absolutely impromptu, then that isn't a perfomance, it's merely someone whistling in the street. Perhaps it is an exaggeration to say "all performance is playing a character," but not much of one.

But then I don't believe that anyone "plays from the heart;" many people think they do, but that doesn't make it so. The presence of others forces a change in the mindset.

What are you trying to say here? Beefheart's music is intensely emotional and often very direct in its sentiment, when it isn't otherwise being playful & humorous. Trout Mask is a ray of sunshine from start to end and always ends up making me smile. I can't think of many albums that have as much humanity in every track.

You can't say any piece of art or creative endeavour is "emotional" - you can say it affects your emotions, but that's the limit. It's completely subjective. I have no emotional response to Beefheart, apart from boredom, whereas I do respond strongly to Waits' music. Though as I hinted, I don't necessarily see that as Beefheart's problem, but mine.

[NoSleep]

Removing the set list doesn't remove the artifice. Performance is by definition artificial and premeditated; if it's absolutely impromptu, then that isn't a perfomance, it's merely someone whistling in the street.

What I said about Derek Bailey in the post above yours answers this. The purest work he did, he claimed, was at home, without concern for an audience. That's not to say he wouldn't try to reject the influence of an audience on his music. No crowd-pleasers from Derek. Indeed, no compositions or even framework. You get to watch a musician conduct his personal research.

But then I don't believe that anyone "plays from the heart;" many people think they do, but that doesn't make it so. The presence of others forces a change in the mindset.

It's a question of degree. If, as in the case of Bailey, you become aware of an adverse influence on your music by playing before an audience, you will find ways to ignore them and concentrate on what you (and your fellow players) are doing. To do anything else with that awareness would be condescending toward the same audience.

[HappyTree]

I always found Zappa inaccessible, so I'm not that keen to listen to Beefheart. I don't like jazz either, in the main. But I do like Tom Waits.

I mean, I love Queen but am not too fussed about The Beatles who were their main influence.

[NoSleep]

Beefheart isn't jazz; he started out as a blues vocalist/harmonica player (Muddy Waters considered him a peer) and took it from there.

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

What I said about Derek Bailey in the post above yours answers this. The purest work he did, he claimed, was at home, without concern for an audience. That's not to say he wouldn't try to reject the influence of an audience on his music. No crowd-pleasers from Derek. Indeed, no compositions or even framework. You get to watch a musician conduct his personal research.

That's not work, or art, that's a hobby. Art needs audiences than it needs artists to exist. Musicians (or anyone) can do their research in their own time like decent people, I have no interest in spending time and money to hear it. Nor do I understand why anyone would, though obviously there are those who do enjoy it - good for them!

It's a question of degree. If, as in the case of Bailey, you become aware of an adverse influence on your music by playing before an audience, you will find ways to ignore them and concentrate on what you (and your fellow players) are doing. To do anything else with that awareness would be condescending toward the same audience.

Don't agree. If someone's response to an audience having an "adverse influence" on your music is to pretend their not there, they're a creative pussy. Challenge and thwart their expectations, don't retreat into some noodly world of your own.

Do you not think that Bailey's audiences have come to expect his freeform, supposedly spontaneous approach? That it's (possibly) just as tired and cliched as the Stones trotting out "Satisfaction" for the umpteenth time?

[NoSleep]

That's not work, or art, that's a hobby. Art needs audiences than it needs artists to exist. Musicians (or anyone) can do their research in their own time like decent people, I have no interest in spending time and money to hear it. Nor do I understand why anyone would, though obviously there are those who do enjoy it - good for them!

Just taking the opposite point of view to me is pointless (for whatever reason you're doing it). I'm simply trying to point out that acting out a part isn't the only option for a performing artist; and that there are points in between Bailey's perspective regarding audiences and Waits or Bowie or The Tubes or any other overtly theatric performers. Take any artist and there will be varying degrees of artifice or theatricality alongside sincerity and heart-felt expression within a single performance.

If someone's response to an audience having an "adverse influence" on your music is to pretend their not there, they're a creative pussy.

Bailey was as far away from timid as any performer could be. Uncompromising would be a better description.

Challenge and thwart their expectations, don't retreat into some noodly world of your own.

Who are you talking to? Bailey? His music challenged everything, from the relationship between an artist and their audience through to what the music business packages and markets to the masses and its inherently condescending attitude towards the same ("but people won't understand" etc etc). There was no retreat (or noodling; Waits' dinner-jazz piano does that). When Bailey arrived on a stage it was like somebody arriving to work, including the usual greetings and his good humour.

Do you not think that Bailey's audiences have come to expect his freeform, supposedly spontaneous approach? That it's (possibly) just as tired and cliched as the Stones trotting out "Satisfaction" for the umpteenth time?

Like I said, his project was personal research into playing; he was constantly looking for new avenues and new combinations of fellow performers from a variety of genres, constantly aware that familiarity created ruts and expectations, thus he would move on. So you have everything from the deeply introspective playing in Iskra 1903 through to in-your-face electric noise in Derek & The Ruins or Arkana; he even worked on some drum'n'bass (inspired by his playing along to pirate stations in London at home). I went along to Bailey's concerts to see what would he do next; he even once confounded his usual disregard for performing to an audience with some amusing stage props (whilst making a point in direct opposition to his antics; nice one). Occasionally I have seen him chat to the audience whilst continuing to play the guitar. Did I mention his sense of humour?

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

Just taking the opposite point of view to me is pointless (for whatever reason you're doing it).

Sorry, but that's fucking annoying. I'm not taking the opposite point of view for the sake of it, and I resent the suggestion. I've made it as clear as I know how that this issue is wholly subjective. It's just my opinion. There's no need to get upset over it.

I'm simply trying to point out that acting out a part isn't the only option for a performing artist; and that there are points in between Bailey's perspective regarding audiences and Waits or Bowie or The Tubes or any other overtly theatric performers. Take any artist and there will be varying degrees of artifice or theatricality alongside sincerity and heart-felt expression within a single performance.

Yes, and I haven't actually disagreed with you there.

Bailey was as far away from timid as any performer could be. Uncompromising would be a better description.

Again, you're failing to understand the subjectivity in that - just because you don't find him timid, it doesn't mean that someone else won't.

Who are you talking to? Bailey?

Yeah. Bailey. Switched tense, sorry.

His music challenged everything, from the relationship between an artist and their audience through to what the music business packages and markets to the masses and its inherently condescending attitude towards the same ("but people won't understand" etc etc). There was no retreat (or noodling; Waits' dinner-jazz piano does that). When Bailey arrived on a stage it was like somebody arriving to work, including the usual greetings and his good humour.

If he challenged anything, he had as much impact as you would attacking the Death Star with a crate of Panda Pops. I wouldn't count that as challenging the industry though, and indeed think it's a little pretentious to describe him as doing so - what you describe him as doing seems very traditional to me (it may not be the dominant tradition but its still a tradition).

Like I said, his project was personal research into playing; he was constantly looking for new avenues and new combinations of fellow performers from a variety of genres, constantly aware that familiarity created ruts and expectations, thus he would move on. So you have everything from the deeply introspective playing in Iskra 1903 through to in-your-face electric noise in Derek & The Ruins or Arkana; he even worked on some drum'n'bass (inspired by his playing along to pirate stations in London at home). I went along to Bailey's concerts to see what would he do next; he even once confounded his usual disregard for performing to an audience with some amusing stage props (whilst making a point in direct opposition to his antics; nice one). Occasionally I have seen him chat to the audience whilst continuing to play the guitar. Did I mention his sense of humour?

Well, that description makes him sound a lot more interesting.

I'm a bit worried I'm coming across as confrontational here, it's not intentional!

[NoSleep]

Again, you're failing to understand the subjectivity in that - just because you don't find him timid, it doesn't mean that someone else won't.

Bailey's opinions about performance are on record in his own books, his biography and the TV series he made about improvisation; there's nowt subjective about it unless we assume that he needed to lie about this.

If he challenged anything, he had as much impact as you would attacking the Death Star with a crate of Panda Pops. I wouldn't count that as challenging the industry though, and indeed think it's a little pretentious to describe him as doing so

Again, I point you to his books and TV series, as well as his international reputation and influence; he might have missed your radar, but the word has got around. I watched the audiences grow as word got out. I love the story of how Thurston Moore introduced two of his all-time favourite guitarists to one another; Derek Bailey & Ron Asheton.

I'm a bit worried I'm coming across as confrontational here, it's not intentional!

I think Neil approves of this sort of thing on his boards. I blame Stew's usage of the word "vaudevillian".

[thugler]

I'm a bit ambivalent about Bailey, I have liked some of the stuff I've heard, including the aforementioned drum and bass/ruins stuff (I think it was just someone elses drum and bass tracks he improvised over though rather than a collaboration though right?).

I dislike this though http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow-YPRq-t8A , it's not even particularly improv since he seems to repeat himself quite a lot (perhaps less a lack of improvisation than lack of concentration). It just seems a bit phoned in, although I suspect that's the point. I tend to prefer his kind of playing in a group setting.

I've definately found him harder to get into than a lot of other improvised/free jazz stuff.

[HappyTree]

That is seriously crap. He's gone so avant garde he's disappeared up his own soundhole. "Making scraping sounds" is not music.

[NoSleep]

I dislike this though http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow-YPRq-t8A , it's not even particularly improv since he seems to repeat himself quite a lot (perhaps less a lack of improvisation than lack of concentration). It just seems a bit phoned in, although I suspect that's the point. I tend to prefer his kind of playing in a group setting.

I love that film (that's just an edit of a whole gig in a record shop, entitled "Playing For Friends On 5th Street"). I don't really hear much "repetition" and it's a peculiar criticism, considering how much more repetitive almost any other music would be in comparison. The story is a good one, too (about the photos for the cover of "Solo Improvisations" - and how it got him the sack from his job at the place the photos were taken).

It recalls for me his usual manner at gigs, very matter of fact, warm and rarely talking much about the music other than to introduce musicians. it isn't the head-down-intense Derek of the earlier years, but the relaxed manner in which he plays is a joy here. Some nice late-period Derek.

Perhaps it would be worth taking a look at his penultimate release before his death to understand what's going on here: Ballads where he applies his musical approach to some old standards from the 50s. It allows you to see how his mind works and why this is, most certainly, music of a very high standard. My own "gateway" recording by him was Iskra 1903 featuring Paul Rutherford & Barry Guy (now available as part of Iskra 1903 - Chapter One).

[Why I Hate Tables]

The clip you posted a lot, with the relaxed atmosphere. However, in the mix of him speaking to the audience with clattering away on his guitar, it bears a remarkable similarity to moments in Waits own body of work where he converses with the audience while noodling away on piano (the second disc of Glitter and Doom is pretty similar or even parts of Nighthawks at The Diner). I don't think either of them are particularly influenced by the other, mind, and have been meaning to investigate Derek Bailey for a while.

That is seriously crap. He's gone so avant garde he's disappeared up his own soundhole. "Making scraping sounds" is not music.

There's a lot more to it than scraping sounds. There are bits and pieces of melody poking through, and it takes a serious talent to be able to string "scraping sounds" into something that entertaining. It's like those moments of improvisation where you hit on something and think "I've got something there" except in this case he's brave enough to discard it and move on. Mainly as that's the entire point. I'm not entirely sure what I'm getting at, but it's definitely more than the pretentious wank it gets dismissed as.

[NoSleep]

That is seriously crap. He's gone so avant garde he's disappeared up his own soundhole. "Making scraping sounds" is not music.

Dad?

[HappyTree]

If the noises he was making had any rhythm or pattern to them then I could perhaps see some merit. Random scrapes are still random scrapes when your art means for them to be random scrapes. Full marks for his artistic point, zero for the beauty of its creation.



^{In my oh so very 'umble opinion, bien sûr}

[NoSleep]

Bailey developed his approach from playing jazz, in a trio with Tony Oxley and Gavin Bryars (the bloke who wrote "Jesus' Blood" as it goes). As they developed and extended the harmonic and rhythmic division within the music they started moving into territory that sounded very "free" but was still bound by the tempo and harmonic base they had started with (as Jazz does). They decided to dispense with the framework and go directly to those sounds they were hearing and Free Improv was born.

There's little random about Bailey's musical approach. It's quite rigorous and thoughtful and takes a little while to see through to, but once you get it a whole new world appears. Bit like Matt Groening's initiation into the world of Trout Mask Replica (which was similar to mine); indeed, Trout Mask showed me that something "difficult" can be worth engaging with, and that there might be something richer or deeper to gain from such work than the instantly appealing (which often gets tiresome quite soon).

[HappyTree]

Well I'm glad you see its artistic merit. It's just not my bag, daddio. I'm off to listen to the Waitser doing the theme from West Side Story. Now that's bootiful .oO

[Jackson K Pollock]

That Derek Bailey video reminds me of the hilarious "Shreds" videos up on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHyl04-ytH8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiXR9ggRdFI

If I had the talent/know-how, I'd quite like to mong up a video of Bailey but put a very technically proficient Steve Vai guitar solo over the top.

[HappyTree]

OMG when the voicebox shred starts up! I can't breathe :-D

[CaledonianGonzo]

There's little random about Bailey's musical approach. It's quite rigorous and thoughtful and takes a little while to see through to, but once you get it a whole new world appears. Bit like Matt Groening's initiation into the world of Trout Mask Replica (which was similar to mine); indeed, Trout Mask showed me that something "difficult" can be worth engaging with, and that there might be something richer or deeper to gain from such work than the instantly appealing (which often gets tiresome quite soon).

I was intrigued by Groenings 'by the sixth or seventh listen I got it' quote, as for me that's about the average for any album, regardless of how complex or simple.

Anyway, while the world's an infinitely better place for people like Bailey doing their own idiosyncratic and narrowly appealing thing, they're always going to be at one end of a spectrum of stuff that runs the gamut from disposable pop music to Waits.  I'd raise a disacquiescent eyebrow at any suggestion that other performers, players or songwriters who choose to plough less difficult, complex or intransigent furrows* are somehow lesser or don't deserve any serious attention as artists.


*Or don't deploy their stage props in solely ironic fashion.

[NoSleep]

That Derek Bailey video reminds me of the hilarious "Shreds" videos up on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHyl04-ytH8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiXR9ggRdFI

If I had the talent/know-how, I'd quite like to mong up a video of Bailey but put a very technically proficient Steve Vai guitar solo over the top.

It wouldn't quite have the comedic value of St's work, would it? Somebody had St's YouTube account removed for what he was doing (a bruised ego, perhaps?. They are so well synced to the performance that I recall people commenting who had no idea they were watching anything other than an actual Santana or Eric Clapton clip. One guy had "responded" to the Santana one with a link to show how much better his mate's band were than what was on show here.

http://www.stsanders.com/www/pages/videos/guitar-shreds/carlos-santana-shreds.php

St is actually a reasonable guitarist and knows what's going to sound like what you see on-screen; the Santana one gets funnier every view, especially what he plays as the musicians nod approval to one another.

His new ones (post YouTube ban) have moved from highlighting the guitarist alone:

http://www.stsanders.com/www/pages/videos/band-shreds/sts-queen.php
http://www.stsanders.com/www/pages/videos/band-shreds/sts-rolling-stones.php

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a slice of entry-level Derek Bailey. The opening track, Laura, from the Ballads album. Perhaps, in seeing how he deconstructs a composition so deftly, it makes it easier to see what he's looking for in his improvisations. Of course it isn't just scratching; in fact Derek manages to utilise the full range of sound possibilities from a guitar; in that respect, perhaps, the most articulate guitarist there's been.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED_iX8JxkiE&feature=fvw

And some more gateway Derek here (featuring Bill Laswell, Jack DeJohnette & DJ Disk):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQDDIwcS1z4&feature=related

[NoSleep]

I was intrigued by Groenings 'by the sixth or seventh listen I got it' quote, as for me that's about the average for any album, regardless of how complex or simple.

Anyway, while the world's an infinitely better place for people like Bailey doing their own idiosyncratic and narrowly appealing thing, they're always going to be at one end of a spectrum of stuff that runs the gamut from disposable pop music to Waits.  I'd raise a disacquiescent eyebrow at any suggestion that other performers, players or songwriters who choose to plough less difficult, complex or intransigent furrows* are somehow lesser or don't deserve any serious attention as artists.


*Or don't deploy their stage props in solely ironic fashion.

The first time I heard Rock Bottom by Robert Wyatt the album set fireworks off in my head; this was one of the best albums I'd ever heard. The fact is, further listening reinforced this, and yes, there was stuff below the surface that I only latched onto after repeated listens. There are plenty of albums that have an instant appeal, but get shelved a few weeks later and finally recycled on ebay, too. Neither experiences were what I spoke about regarding Bailey or Beefheart; that you needed to take the time to unravel the language and tune into their musical universe in a way that is unnecessary when an artist uses the conventional lexicon of sounds, rhythms & harmonies. I would say I was biased toward thinking that somebody who had gone that far might know a little more about how music works if they are confident enough to rip it all down and start again, but that doesn't mean artists who don't are necessarily lacking in the same depth or knowledge.

I think you've assumed something that I never meant to imply.

[Neville Chamberlain]

The first time I heard Rock Bottom by Robert Wyatt the album set fireworks off in my head; this was one of the best albums I'd ever heard. The fact is, further listening reinforced this, and yes, there was stuff below the surface that I only latched onto after repeated listens.

Oh this album's incredible.

I've often thought about starting a thread about this very album and indeed Mr. Wyatt's other marvellous output!

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

Bailey's opinions about performance are on record in his own books, his biography and the TV series he made about improvisation; there's nowt subjective about it unless we assume that he needed to lie about this.

I meant my preferences (and yours) are subjective - I'm not interested in Bailey's opinions.

I think Neil approves of this sort of thing on his boards. I blame Stew's usage of the word "vaudevillian".

I just don't want to be a dick to someone that doesn't deserve it!

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

That is seriously crap. He's gone so avant garde he's disappeared up his own soundhole. "Making scraping sounds" is not music.

To go back to my earlier point, that isn't a performance, although I wouldn't describe it anywhere near as scathingly as HappyTree. It'd be ok background music, but Bailey's not expressing anything there.

[NoSleep]

To you he isn't. No point talking about subjective/objective/opinions/etc on an internet board; we all know that is the case. He is expressing something; you're not hearing it. Like he's speaking a language you don't know, is all.

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

Exactly. Which takes us back to my original point.

_{If only I could remember what that was}

[NoSleep]

But you just plainly said "that's not a performance", which it patently is, and "Bailey's not expressing anything there", which is meaningless as a statement, particularly if what you meant was, "I don't get it".