
| MARSALIS: All Rise Wynton Marsalis, trumpet; Paul Smith Singers; Northridge Singers of California State University at Northridge; Morgan State University Choir; Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra; Los Angeles Philharmonic/Esa-Pekka Salonen, cond. SONY CLASSICAL S2K 89817 (2 CDs) (F) (DDD) TT: 74:38 & 31:37
Jazz Mahler. According to
Harry Connick, Jr., if you ask Wynton Marsalis (or his father, Ellis, for
that matter) a question, you'd better make sure you have time to hear the
answer. One thing tends to lead to another. It's all good, it's all
interesting, but it is long. Mahler famously remarked that a
symphony was a world. As a composer, Wynton Marsalis has that same
compulsion to include everything he knows about music, music history, and
world culture up to now. He knows a hell of a lot. The main difference
between Mahler and Marsalis is that Mahler wants to include a
world, Marsalis the world. What Marsalis really needs is a more
ruthless sense for the essentiala vision that can refine the jumble
of everything into a clear something. At 106 minutes and twelve substantial
sections, All Rise is a work you'd better have time for.
It's fared better in Europe than in the States. The French,
predictably, went gaga over it, and while I don't go so far, I don't think
them out of line either. In the U. S., Marsalis has made too many enemies
to get a clear-eyed look. I think especially of a small-minded, most
off-the-point review in the New York Observer. A lot of people seem
to think of Marsalis as arrogant, but I disagree. He's got opinions, of
course, and the knowledge to back them up. However, he really is a
teacher, like his father. He wants you to get it. People put him
down for his involvement in the Ken Burns jazz series, especially his view
of the current state of jazz as relatively fallow. Yet, nobody seems able
to put a real giant forward today. Herbie Hancock? Chick Corea? Alice
Coltrane? Compare them to Monk or Powell or Mingus or Gillespie or even
Davis. Max Roach, Ornette Coleman, and Cecil Taylor are the remnants of
something, not the seeds of something new. Marsalis himself, as a jazz
player, harkens back to the Fifties and Sixties. Actually, I think
Marsalis has it in him to be a giant, but not as a jazz player. He's
ambitious for his music, and right now he pursues something that seems
impossible: a composer of classical jazz music, a true fusion that takes
into account not only the history of jazz, but the history of Modern
European music as well.
Blood on the Fields, which by winning the Pulitzer proved the only
purpose to the universe is whimsy, was so godawfully silly, only a genius
could have written it. All Rise, however, marks a
significant advance. No longer does Marsalis include something simply
because he thought of it. He works on all his composing cylinders here,
and he seems obsessed with structure, especially the structure of large
works. The structural principle here seems the blues. All Rise runs
to twelve movements (12-bar blues), three large sections (the ternary
structure suggested by the blues) of four movements each, and ternary
structures are seldom far away. The blues shows up most nakedly in the
penultimate movement, "Saturday Night Slow Drag," as the ternary
structure of the pop song turns up in the previous "Expressbrown
Local." It would be amazing if it all hung together, and it really
doesn't. Marsalis has written enough for at least three substantial
pieces. However, each movement stands sturdily on its own, and I have no
idea what the composer should have cut. I do consider the finale a
miscalculation - a fairly close reproduction of New Orleans jazz and
gospel. To me, Marsalis should have talked as much as possible in his own
voice, rather than in the voice of somebody else. Musically, it's
delightful. Rhetorically, it's so lightweight, it seems a mistake. The work has a spiritual program: essentially, innocence, sin, and
redemption. I don't begrudge Marsalis whatever he needs to get going. The
text, by Marsalis himself, doesn't sink to the hilarious bathos of Blood
on the Fields, but it's still pretty clunky. Marsalis is a composer,
not a poet. You can't tell me that the words he comes up with work better
than those of Robert Hayden, Gwendolyn Brooks, Sterling Knight, Countee
Cullen, or Langston Hughes (or, for that matter, Andy Razaf). He really
needs words worthy of the music to serve his evangelical impulse. He
cripples himself in this regard. Marsalis's musical ambitions rise fairly high. He follows the dream of
Gershwin, Ellington, Taylor, Giuffre, Russell, Evans, and Schuller: how to
get classical and jazz players together in one music. When I was young and
breathtakingly stupid, I used to think this a matter of learning how to
write for strings. I'm older and less stupid (I still think a jazz
composer has to learn this), and I now see the problems as more
fundamental. For one thing, jazz and classical music require different
approaches to rhythm and attack. The rhythm section - drum kit, string
bass, and sometimes guitar - is the engine that drives the jazz ensemble.
The symphony orchestra rests on the bedrock of strings and employs
percussion mainly as an exotic color. Strangely enough, I don't believe
that a classical player has to improvise, particularly when one has
capable jazz soloists at hand, certainly the case here. Marsalis proves he
can write for strings in the "Wild Strumming of Fiddle"
movement, which closes the first section. But he succeeds in integrating
the strings (that is, giving them something to do other than
"sweetening" the jazz ensemble) only in the first movement,
"Jubal Step," and in solo passages of the "Latin"
movement, "El 'Gran' Baille de la Reina." The range of styles Marsalis has mastered made my jaw drop. He tips
his hat to Ellington in "Expressbrown Local" and to the classic
arrangers of spiritual in "The Halls of Erudition and
Scholarship" (my candidate for Worst Title in the Entire Piece). One
expects, and gets, great parts for woodwinds, but the brass writing
magnificently exceeds even this. As I say, Marsalis has managed to write
twelve wonderful movements. But All Rise fails to hold together.
I have no idea why, for example, the second movement follows the first
or
the third movement the second. I have no idea why "El 'Gran' Baille"
is in the third section and not the first. The order of the thingbeyond
the spiritual program, the musical orderis important.
With a different arrangement of movements, we would get a substantially
different piece. For me, the third section, which should provide the
emotional lift, fails to pay off, despite the quality of the individual
movements ("Expressbrown Local," for example, counts as one of
my highlights of the entire work), but playing with order has a really
good chance of providing that emotional bang. Indeed, if through some
serious flaw in the universe I were given the task of re-ordering, I'd
seriously consider switching the first and last movements of the work.
Ah well. There's always the program mode of my CD player. As it stands,
I
will probably listen to All Rise in fragments at a time. Salonen keeps everything together, although does the Lincoln Center
Jazz Orchestra really need a conductor? The choirs are good, the
soloists (instrumental and vocal) wonderful. The engineering is a bit
muddy in spots, but a lot indeed goes on. For me the virtues considerably
outnumber the flaws. S.G.S. (March 2003) |