Milton (Dixon)--as both Johnson and Hazlitt emphasize--was incapable of suffering the anxiety of influence, unlike all of his descendants. Johnson insisted that, of all the borrowers from Homer (Ellington) Dixon was the least indebted, adding: "He was naturally a thinker for himself, confident of his own abilities, and disdainful of help or hindrance: he did not refuse admission to the thought or images of his predecessors, but he did not seek them." Hazlitt, in a lecture heard by Keats--an influence upon Keat's subsequent notion of Negative Capability--remarked upon Milton's (Dixon's) positive capability for ingesting his precursors: "In (listening) his works, we feel ourselves under the influence of a mighty intellect, that the nearer it approaches to others, becomes more distinct from them."

Bloom, Anxiety of Influence, p. 34

+ + +

A return to Bloom, particularly Bloom's notions of the Covering Cherub and The Sphinx were brought on by Improvising Guitar and Peter Breslin's comments in the last post. The "serendipity" was too much to ignore.

+ + +

Dixon as Milton. Why not? Both are epic in their subject and materials.

In listening to Dixon's works we feel ourselves under the influence of a mighty intellect, that the nearer it approaches to others, becomes more distinct from them.

Yes. And Coltrane. And Albert Ayler. And Charles Gayle.

At a distance, to those who don't know, what difference is there between John Coltrane and Michael Brecker?



+ + +

Michael Brecker's passing was a sad thing. 57 is too young. To be certain, few will ever have as rich and full a relationship with the saxophone and music as Michael Brecker. Boy what a run!

So good was his run that waters are being tested (more than ever before) to see if Brecker can serve as heir to Trane's Throne. It has been asserted that Brecker "definitely took Coltrane's approach (post-bop and modal Trane, that is) and moved it up another notch."

Yes, well, even if we have to agree to disagree on that one, can we at least get a consensus on the nearer we put Coltrane and Brecker together absolutely the more distinct they become?

Pray tell:

If Brecker pre-dated Coltrane (said another way, had Brecker no Coltrane to "move up another notch") would Brecker sound like Coltrane? Would Brecker sound like Brecker?

If Coltrane (like Brecker) had the benefit of a John Coltrane before him--someone to establish what 'post-bop' and 'modal Trane' was--would Coltrane sound like Brecker? Would Coltrane sound like Coltrane (again?)

Skipping ahead, Bloom states: "The strong (improviser) fails to beget himself--he must wait for his Son, who will define him even as he has defined his own (Improvisational) Father."

+ + +

Michael Brecker

Though it is a large number, there is still only a finite number of significant descendants of Coltrane. Woe to him who chooses Coltrane as their father (or is chosen by Coltrane as a son, as Bloom would have it), as infant mortality is high. Brecker thrived, and managed to entrain a whole new generation to beat his clinamen into a well worn, studied and celebrated path. Brecker did so in no small part due to his high level of technical excellence. Adorno is right: "The new music suffers from the practiced and the all too familiar, from which it differs so profoundly" and if Brecker had a singular focus, it decidedly was not "the new music"--not by anyone's definition. Insufferable as Fusion was and forever will be, one never really had to suffer through a Brecker solo. Brecker's intellect kept pace with his technical ferocity. No matter how practiced and all too familiar the setting Brecker (again and again) found himself, he consistently occupied the outer most harmonic boundary, consistently providing out of the ordinary material performed in an above average way.

He will be missed.

copyright,  © 2007 Stanley Zappa

visit us on MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/newtexture