Cinematic Orchestra - "not just jazzy but jazz"

what cinematic o is getting at (i think) is a revival of a style of jazz that was short-lived and maybe was too specific to have a name.

after free jazz lost some steam (coltrane died, ornette had made his most vital, challenging statements) and after miles had gone electric, bringing with him the rise of fusion (but before fusion got really lame) there was this kind of fusion-y, modal jazz that was quite free but full of strong repetitive rhythmic underpinnings and did not swing at all. a good point of reference i think would be pharoah sanders' 'thembi' ... i mention this in part because of a review in 'the wire' of cinematic o that mentions the bass playing is akin to cecil mcbee (a real cat!) who played bass on some pharoah sanders stuff. it got me thinking. what do you think?

i also think jazz proper is in such dire shape these days (aside from luminaries like matthew shipp et. all) that labelling cinematic o. 'jazz' is a smart move ... maybe breathes a little life into a largely moribund genre.

I honestly don't think Cinematic Orchestra is a 'Jazz' band. Although I do like some of their music, it's much more 'downtempo' than Jazz. However there is a trend, in bands like Cinematic Orchestra, and more strongly St Germain that have seemed to have become as you said, not just jazzy but Jazz, for a select few critics. I'm reminded of the upsurge of 'Acid Jazz' some years ago, this label was given to jazzy electronica music and was somewhat misguidingly labeled as a Jazz. The degree of Schism in Jazz, is immense, more divesions than any other music I can think of. I could easily name around 30 different types of Jazz right now.

However if Cinematic Orchestra was a Jazz band, it would have to have it's own catagory, which I'd name 'Downbeat Jazz', some other artists I am reminded of are DJ Food (Word Jazz artists Ken Nordine played with them), and even Amon Tobin!

QUOTE: i also think jazz proper is in such dire shape these days (aside from luminaries like matthew shipp et. all) that labelling cinematic o. 'jazz' is a smart move ... maybe breathes a little life into a largely moribund genre.

I don't think Jazz Proper is dire shape, I think the Free Jazz scene is absolutely thriving especially in countries like Japan, Europe and England. For example of think of Otomo Yoshihide's New Jazz Quintet, and much of the expermental music on John Zorn's 'Tzadik' label. Some of the stuff isn't exactly Jazz, but I'd classify some of the stuff as Jazz. A guitarist that have a promising future is Noel Akchote, an excellent French guitarist, dueted with Eugene Chadbourne among others on an extremely excellent album 'Lust Corner'. Satoko Fujii is another jazz musicians with a bright future, she has recently released two new albums, one is called 'Vulcan', I've forgotten the name of the other, anyway she has gained experienced as a leader, and her sidemen include the likes of Mark Dresser, and the drummer from the Japanese Avant-Prog group Ruins. Altered States' album of standards is a rather interesting version of Jazz, which could almost be classified as 'Noise Jazz'.

Jazz is fine and well, but a little more difficult to find than it used to be.

Fields of salmon I suspect you are right that this is someone's idea of a "smart move". I was kind of hoping someone in the know could confirm. If so Geoffrey is right that the "Acid Jazz" phenomenon is a forerunner. (And should probably serve as warning. Although I suppose it served its commercial purpose before everybody woke up to how bland the music was).

I don't know the Pharoah Sanders you mention but I do see some similarities with the electric Miles stuff. But listening to CO think a comparison with the Marcus Miller era Miles would be at least as valid as a more flattering "Bitches Brew" comparison (if that's what you mean by fusion before it went lame). CO is pleasant stuff but somehow I don't think it'll have a long shelf-life.

Your suggestion that jazz is "moribund" is right but in a sense that is mainly of interest to critics and cultural historians rather than music fans. I doubt there will ever be another revolutionary breakthrough in the music, or another figure of the stature of Ellington or Coltrane or [pick jazz giant of choice]. But there's still a lot of good jazz being played for people who just want to hear good music. I'll be at the North Sea Jazz festival in July and have no doubt I'll have a wonderful time. Even though I know that if someone's billed as the new Miles it will just mean there's a new guy who sounds a bit like Miles.

I haven't heard the new Cinematic Orchestra CD, so my comments are only based on "Motion", which I thought was a good listen.

If I was to compare Cinematic Orchestra to any artists usually filed under the record bin known as "jazz", I think it would be closest to the albums of Gil Evans or David Axelrod. Cinematic O. definitely seems to be trying to capture something about the way that they used a set arrangement for a large ensamble, except being stitched gotether with samplers and a digital audio workstations instead of charts. I suppose a similarity can be also found with some of Quincy Jones and Lalo Schifrin's film music with the fat beats and jazzy ensamble sound.

Beyond the audio similiarites, I think even some of the aestetics of the titles like "Night of the Iguana" seem like something that Axelrod or Gil Evans would record. (Maybe this is just me...I don't know.)

As for it being "jazz" in the purest since, I don't know, as the amount of improvisation is kind of questionable, as it is quite arranged and edited music.

somehow we have gotten the idea that jazz has only recently become a marginalized art form. really i think it's been that way all along (with a few obvious exceptions) but it is the media attention given (often posthumously) to jazz in a historical context that makes it seem like there's nothing going on now. fifty years ago, who was on the 'charts'? same pop crap as always. jazz has and always will be mostly underground.

the thing that i dislike the most about what's happened to jazz in the past twenty or twenty-five years is the 'gentrification' of it. particularily in north america (i can't speak for most of europe or japan), jazz has been co-opted by upper middle class audiences as a sort of soundtrack to their own pretentiousness. at the only jazz club in my city you can't spit in the parking lot without hitting a volvo.

i am excited by the thriving free jazz scene worldwide (thanks for the picks george). in my city the only jazz of interest is the free stuff, promoted by a cafe/bar and a bookshop who host weekly shows. the free jazz pulls in all sorts of vital, creative people, different people. it's about the musicality and the enjoyment, not the 'see- and-be-seen-appreciating-jazz' of the 'inside jazz club'. our jazz festival this year is hosting some real 'inside' cats but also progressive (to digress to the original topic) hip-hop acts like herbaliser.

personally, i'm glad they're on the bill. has anyone seen cinematic orchestra live?

In my opinion the question as to whether CO make "real" jazz is so esoteric as to defy any serious answer. Makes for an interesting question though.

That said I agree with a lot of the statements already made. To my mind jazz became so diffuse, so broad, as to render itself as a category almost obsolete as part of the process of it's own dynamic and it's only in that sense that it is moribund. Curious though that for a moribund form it's influence seems to be stronger than ever as strict definitions become more and more difficult to make. All well and good to my mind.

The comparison with between CO & St Germain is I think valid but I always thought "acid jazz" was something of misnomer. St Germain (Ludovic Navarre) came out of French Deep/Underground House but a lot of drum and bass was also evolving towards jazz at the same time.

Take your pick but I think jazz is in the ear of the listener.

I agree that the Davis/Evans parallel exists at least in terms of intent with the CO. As for the thorny question of improvisation, it is apparently a vital component of the process of making music for the CO.

"While most people in the electronic world tend to just rearrange and juxtapose old recordings and samples, Swinscoe and company approach the composition strategy in a more organic and reverent way. “It starts off finding a variety of different samples and then generating ideas about how to develop that sample into a piece of music. Then I bring all the musicians in and get them to play some ideas and jam along. We record various jam sessions with a lot of improvising. All the live material is then chopped up and recycled as much as possible into every individual hit of that instrument. That way you can manipulate the groove. The hardest thing is sitting down and listening to the music and finding out what the essence of the recordings was and pulling out all the best [elements] and all [of] the magic. Then we reconstruct the track with or without the original sample." http://www.weeklydig.com/?ContentId=842

As for the CO live you can at least catch some recordings of them playing live at this link for as long as files stay up.

http://justconcerts.com/concerts/concert.cfm? Concert_Id=61&Act_Id=106&Concert_IsLive=1

Overall I think the latest album is their weakest. IMO it was made with commercial intent and most of it doesn't stand up to repeated listening in the same way that Motion or the Remixes does. Maybe a contractual obligation or compromise.

Anyway I think they have a new album in the works but the main curiosity for me was the, at least, intended concert with John McLaughlin earlier this year. I don't know if this came about but it was planned. I'd be interested to hear if anyone knows.

Rob Burns