So is there a connection between me and Pekar? I'm not sure. Pekar took a stab at his dream and I'm only taking baby steps. Learning of his success (via the film) inspired me. We're often bombarded with all manner of self-help advice. So much so that we become jaded to its message. Sometimes it's easy to forget that good things do indeed happen.
I'm torturing the inside of the Subaru this morning with the not-so-soothing sounds of pianist Cecil Taylor. Somehow, I did not know that one of Pekar's other passions was jazz music. He was incredibly knowledgeable and was not afraid of letting his opinions fly. Check out his review of the Ken Burns jazz documentary. Entitled "Better Than Nothing," Pekar let Burns and his enablers have it. He was right to point out that the series pretty much ignored any modern jazz. Explanations for the oversight were offered but it was pretty obvious to me (and to Pekar) that people like Wynton Marsalis and Stanley Crouch had no use for the stuff, especially anybody coming out of Chicago's AACM. Sorry guys, you don't get to decide what is or isn't jazz, no matter how many times you find "new" ways to recycle Ellington.
Well... so long, Mr. Pekar. We all loved you, and deep down inside, you knew it. Thanks.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Tom Johnson
American Splendor (the film) is also pretty much my only exposure to Pekar, but I thought it and he were both pretty brilliant. It just goes to show that if you're a good enough writer, anything can be a good story. He found those amazing little nuggets of wisdom tucked into everyday life. I'm really going to have to pick up some of the AS books at some point, despite having no interest in comics or graphic novels. He's just such an interesting guy. He definitely will be missed.
2 - Mark Saleski
yeah, i totally have to find the books now, no doubt!
3 - Alan Kurtz
Mark, since I'm a generation older than you, the two of us come at Harvey Pekar from opposite directions. "Somehow," you write, "I did not know that one of Pekar's other passions was jazz." For my part, before reading his obituary, I did not know that he wrote comic books. I did, however, remember his name as someone who wrote about jazz circa 1960. What I couldn't recall is why I'd been unimpressed back then. So I took your advice and checked out his review of Ken Burns' Jazz to which you provided a hyperlink.
At 4,130 words, his piece is overlong and far from brilliant. Mostly it comes across as carping, which is no great literary feat. And it bristles with cheap shots. "Every nation has something unique about it, for crying out loud," Pekar cries out loud. "Regarding the similarities between jazz and democracy, jazz is hardly unique as a form of collective activity that involves cooperation between individuals. Volleyball does as well. Can we, then, look forward to Burns doing a series on the history of volleyball?" Altogether, I'd call such writing sophomoric, except I think sophomores could do better.
Reviewing the documentary's companion book, Pekar says it "opens with Burns' banal, cliché-ridden preface, wherein he claims that 'the genius of America is improvisation,' and that 'the Constitution is the greatest improvisational document ever created.' Pardon me, Mr. Burns, but the Constitution was not written in half an hour; its creation involved a great deal of preparation, debate, and discussion. Even ordinary school kids know it was far from 'improvised.' What kind of crap is he handing us?"
Mark, as a much better writer about jazz yourself than Pekar ever was, you know very well that the best improvised music, jazz or otherwise, is the result of a great deal of preparation, debate and discussion. It's not just slapped together in half an hour. In short, what kind of crap is Pekar handing us?
I also take issue with his conclusions. "What Burns could've done without damaging the commercial appeal of his series," Pekar opines, "would've been to give more attention to the efforts of today's (i.e. living) innovators. Their performances might have posed difficulties for most viewers … but more people might support them if they were at least exposed to it. By ignoring recent developments in jazz history, Burns' Jazz makes it appear that the genre's evolution is over."
Fact is, the genre's evolution is over. It's 2010. Listen to some of today's free jazz artists, such as our former Jazz.com colleague Chris Kelsey. His latest CD sounds like warmed-over Ornette Coleman Quartet, circa 1959 during their triumphant gig at New York's Five Spot Café. The notion that Ken Burns' epic 2001 documentary is the only thing standing in the way of vast hordes rushing to listen to today's jazz is preposterous. The lack of acceptance for such music has nothing whatever to do with exposure. You could "expose" me nonstop for years on end to Kenny G, and I still wouldn't like what I heard. Ditto exposing today's listeners (who couldn't care less) to today's jazz. Let's face it, the music itself is uninteresting at best, insufferable at worst. Jazz's history may not have stopped on July 17, 1967, the day John Coltrane died (43rd anniversary tomorrow), but maybe it should have.
4 - roger nowosielski
It's "smooth jazz," so they call it, epitomized by the late Luther Vandross.
Of course, you're going to inspire a great deal of ire from those who believe in the ever-evolving nature of all art forms.
5 - Alan Kurtz
Roger, I'd call Luther Vandross an R&B artist rather than smooth jazz, although there were a couple of popular smooth jazz tribute albums called Forever, For Always, For Luther (Vol. I, 2004; Vol. II, 2006). But as usual you've put your finger on the nub of the issue: belief in "the ever-evolving nature of all art forms." Among those few jazz fans and writers still left, most are in denial that jazz, like all other art forms, had a beginning, middle and end. That doesn't mean we can't still enjoy it. Baroque music lasted from approximately 1600 to 1750. It categorically stopped evolving 250 years ago. But many people, including me, consider Bach the greatest of all composers, and can't get enough of him and other Baroque masters such as Corelli, Purcell, Albinoni, Vivaldi, Telemann, Rameau, Scarlatti, Handel, and Pergolesi. There's no shame in recognizing that jazz stopped evolving decades ago, nor does such recognition diminish the artistry of those musicians who have persisted in trying to breathe air into jazz's carcass. But it's sad that they refuse to see what a wasted effort it is.
6 - Alan Kurtz
Mark, I think my use of Kenny G as an example is misleading. Please substitute Cecil Taylor. Better illustrates my point.
7 - El Bicho
"Somehow, this was all a lot funner back in 1982."
I don't know. It's pretty damn funny in 2010 from my vantage point.
Are Mark and Tom saying they only know Pekar from the movie and hearing about his work? Surely you saw his appearances on Letterman, right?
Pekar doesn't seem to understand Burns. Sure it would be nice if Burns was up to date with modern artists but that's not the way he works. He thinks events have to become history and gain additional perspective before they get covered. It's why the innings in Baseball cover a decade each except the last where he covers 23 years and the most recent years whiz by. Besides ending when Duke and Satchmo died seems like a great end of an era to close out the series. He may revisit it as he is now doing with baseball.
8 - Mark Saleski
bicho, i vaguely remember seeing pekar on letterman...but i obviosly didn't know who he was at the time.
as for burns, i was really disappointed in the jazz series.
9 - Alan Kurtz
Mark, I made two points, and neither had anything to do with your being "really disappointed" in the Burns series. I realize you're busy, so let me simplify: (1) As a jazz writer, Harvey Pekar finishes last in a field of one. (2) Zappa's famous maxim needs to be updated. It should now read, "Jazz smells funny because it's dead."
10 - roger nowosielski
What was the original formulation, do tell!
11 - Alan Kurtz
Roger, in the lyrics to his song "Be-Bop Tango (Of the Old Jazzmen's Church)" on the album Roxy & Elsewhere (1974), Frank Zappa declared, "Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny." It's gotten a great deal of mileage since then, and is now virtually treadless. Thus my proposed update.
12 - Mark Saleski
alan, you made two points...to which i did not reply. i was talking to bicho.
i realize what your points are and i don't care. if you think the progression of the music has stopped, then you have stopped listening.
and seriously, dumping on pekar's skills as a jazz writer completely misses the point of why he resonated with me.
13 - zingzing
mr. kurtz: "There's no shame in recognizing that jazz stopped evolving decades ago..."
except in recognizing that you haven't been paying attention. everything evolves. jazz has slowed down its evolution to a certain extent, but to suggest it has "stopped" is just ridiculous. steve coleman and john zorn (although his forward-thinking work is more about genre-fucking than anything else these days) would beg to differ.
jazz changed with remarkable violence between the 30s and the 70s, but every genre is bound to slow down and speed up at various points. classical, although never coming to a dead end, was fairly static for large swaths of time, and i'd say it's currently in on of those swaths, after the ridiculous activity that came about from the creation of electricity and recorded sound through the late 60s or so. it'll bounce back. hip hop is in a minor ice age at the moment as well, but i'd bet that 10 years from now, you'll be amazed at how far it's moved. all it takes is one idea.
14 - roger nowosielski
zing, old forms die out and new ones evolve. Why is there just a big deal with you admitting that. It's no different with literature. For Chrissake, not everything is linear.
Stop being so freakin' apologetic for modernity, you and Mark, too. It smacks of insecurity, and I certainly don't want to accuse you of that, so don't make me.
15 - Alan Kurtz
Mark, you certainly put me in my place. Sorry I commented here. I won't make that mistake again.
16 - roger nowosielski
Never mind that, Alan. Mark is laboring under the impression that he owns this section, that unless you write music review, you don't belong. To which I say, fuck it!
17 - roger nowosielski
"... and seriously, dumping on pekar's skills as a jazz writer completely misses the point of why he resonated with me."
Then perhaps the reasons why he resonated with you are juvenile, or at least liable to be suspected so. Which makes you a fair game!
18 - El Bicho
Maybe Mark doesn't like people who live in the US reading and commenting on his articles? Or maybe it's not always about you? Hard to believe, I know.
Roger, you are laboring under the impression that you know what you are talking about here. It's not about who thinks they own the section but who thinks they are entitled to a response.
19 - roger nowosielski
Don't get pissy, LB. We all know what we're talking about, each in their own way, so what point is it that you're really making other than just commenting for the sake of commenting? Is that part of the editorial privilege?
And if Mark doesn't want outside commenters on his site, let him do a disclaimer just as Alan did. Besides, let's hear from the horse's ass himself rather than the horse's-ass advocate. It would carry a far greater weight as far as I am concerned. Your assertions as to Mark's probable state of mind are utterly unconvincing.
20 - roger nowosielski
And why should anyone give a hood whether Mark graces a comment with a response or not, LB. Now you're elevating your colleague to a level of divinity.
Amazing the affinity that exists among BC musicologists. [edited] Must be a symbiotic relationship of a kind, or a contact high.
Well, I see nothing but arrogance.
21 - Jordan Richardson
Mark is laboring under the impression that he owns this section, that unless you write music review, you don't belong.
How in the sweet blue hell did you come up with that, Roger?
22 - Jordan Richardson
It was Alan who wondered why Mark didn't reply, Roger. I think you're getting mixed up.
23 - Dr Dreadful
Speaking with my comments editor hat on, I'm getting rather bored with all the bickering over who is or isn't entitled to comment where, and will be inclined to start editing with a heavier hand if the noisy brawling in the muck at the back of the pigsty gets any more tiresome.
24 - Glen Boyd
Roger,
As one of the BC "musicologists" you speak of (actually, make that "Rockologist"...heh, heh), I'm a little puzzled as to the nature of this "affinity" amongst us you mention.
Truth be told, we bicker amongst ourselves quite frequently...it's actually part of the job description. ;>)
-Glen
25 - roger nowosielski
Fair enough, Glen. I was being purposefully testy. It's just that oftentimes when we from Politics visit your site - and this includes the Sports enclave as well - we're told in no uncertain terms to shove off. Never by you, to be fair. The same, however, doesn't obtain when you comment in Politics. As far as I am concerned, everyone is a fair game but perhaps, just perhaps, some of you consider yourselves "experts," and that other voices don't count.
I don't comment much on BC anymore, mainly for lack of challenge, partly because I've found another site. But be that as it may, when I see the kind of rudeness displayed on Mark Salesky's part, or insecurity, or whatever else you want to call it, dismissing offhand what may well have been a valid point that Alan had made, respond I will.
And then, LB always considers it his prerogative to stand up for his partners- in-crime in absentia.
Well, I don't buy it. Everyone's shit stinks.