Ellery Eskelin Interview for Discourse
Spring 1998
(soon to be published)
by Yves Citton
Yves Citton wrote:
> MUSICAL QUESTIONNAIRE
>
> HISTORY AND TRADITIONS
> I.1. When you are asked what kind of music you play, what is your answer?
> Is their a name you are happy with to label the type of music you create?
It depends on who is asking the question. I will sometimes say "jazz" or
other times "improvised music". There is really no single name to describe
the music that I play. The word jazz is so large that it can mean completely
different things to different people.
> I.2. Do you identify at all with the category of jazz? Do you see your
> work as rooted in the "jazz tradition"?
As a player I have strong roots in the jazz tradition but I apply those roots
to situations that may not be considered jazz (for example having a band with
saxophone, accordion and drums). It would be disingenuous to deny the
influence of jazz musicians in my work yet it is becoming increasingly
difficult to characterize all of my work as jazz.
> I.3. Is it important for you to be rooted within one (or a mix of)
> specific tradition(s) : jazz, African music, Western music, serial
> composition, minimalism, etc.? Within which of these traditions do you
> believe your work should be understood?
It is not important to me that I remain rooted in any particular tradition
nor do I believe that my work needs to be understood through any particular
tradition. Music is listened to and dealt with on a personal basis by
individuals in a personal way. Everyone is going to hear something slightly
different. It may be helpful to some people to think in terms of these
traditions and it may also be an obstacle to other people to think in terms
of traditions. I think that my music can speak beyond traditions and be self
contained as well as be connected to other musics.
> I.4. If you had to name a half-dozen contemporary musicians with whom you
> feel a musical kinship, whom would you name?
That is difficult to say since I feel a kinship with all musicians, not just
ones who are doing similar things as I am. Sometimes I actually feel a bit
distanced from many of the other New York jazz/improvisor/composers. That is
not a bad thing at all, just an observation.
> I.5. If these musicians were to be grouped into a school or a
> movement, how would you define what they have in common?
By that I'll assume you mean the group of improvisor/composers commonly
associated with new music, new jazz. The common factor today is the fact that
each composer/improvisor is free to do it as they please. There is no longer
a dominant figure or trend which everyone must follow or react against.
Everyone is free to develop their own way of approaching music.
> I.6. And how would define the specificity of their contribution to the
> long term evolution of musical forms? In other words : if you look at
> our historical moment in the perspective of the past centuries, what do
> you think is unique (or simply important) in the musical movement(s) to
> which you belong?
I would not really define this as a movement but there are features of the scene today that sort of define the attitude of a great many musicians even
as they all pursue different means to their music. I see today's scene as
fragmented, with no clear leader, and no single or dominant method for
creating music. I see this as a great environment in which to create music.
Now that the more or less major musical discoveries of the modernist movement
have been made we can get on with the business of making a music out of
everything at our disposal rather than being limited by narrowly focused
philosophies of art and music. Each person is free to go their own way.
> I.7. In reference to architecture, visual arts and ideological trends, our
> period has been characterized as "postmodern". Do you identify with this
> label? If so, what was, in your view, "modern" music, and what makes your
> music "post-modern"?
Yes, I identify with postmodernism. To me, modern music meant an attempt
break with the past and be completely original with no reference to anything
but itself, free of influences. I don't think that that is even possible but
I think that's what composers were often trying to do. Post-modern means to
me being free to draw on any or all past ideas and influences while changing
the context for them, mixing them in unique ways and combining them with new
ideas. This creates a new music that also addresses our current perspective
on the world a little more honestly and accurately. It feels more like what
life feels like to me.
> I.8. If not, do you see yourself as closer to the tradition of "modernist"
> art (Cubism, Webern, Joyce, etc.)?
Not really. Although I've always admired modernist art, Jazz, I think has
always been more or less a "postmodern" music, drawing in influences from
around the world and creating something new out of them. Modernist music has
influenced be but I do not subscribe to the theory as a musician.
> PLAYING AND COMPOSING
> II.1. Do you see yourself more as a composer or as a player? Do you feel
> these are two separate aspects of your work, or one inseparable whole?
I feel more like a player although my composing probably defines my work just
as sharply. I have not composed for other musicians, only for my own
projects.
> II.2. Do you feel equally/less/more inventive and creative when you play a
> piece composed by someone else (a standard for example) than when you play
> your own compositions?
It all depends on the piece. Ultimately I feel the most satisfied playing my
own music but I find it necessary artistically to play other people's music
as well. I do find my self sometimes avoiding jazz and jazz type
instrumentations when they are offered to me as a sideperson. I really want to push in another direction but there are not to many other groups that
offer alternatives to that and there are only a few groups in which I feel
comfortable playing in a jazz like format with.
> II.3. Does it have any value to you that your listener be able to
> "whistle" parts of your pieces after s/he has heard it several times?
No.
> II.4. How do you negotiate the dialectics of improvisation (if the freedom
> to break boundaries is restricted, part of the genuine energy/creativity
> may be lost; if no boundaries are set, no specific form is created)?
I set parameters on the improvisation in a positive way. Rather than saying
that something is forbidden (which would be negative) I talk about the focus
that I am trying to achieve (which is more positive). That way there is
always room for some degree of surprise and creativity. If no boundaries are
set that does not mean the no form is created, it simply means that no
predetermined from is created. In the end result there is always some type of
form that can be discerned.
> II.5. How self-conscious are you of the forms you use? Which role does a
> self-conscious reflection about forms play in your creation? How often is
> your work triggered by elaborating concepts rather than sounds?
I am very conscious of the forms I use. I want each composition to have a
clear separate identity. I consider my work much more conceptual than most
"jazz" musicians. Rather than take a certain concept (such as
"head-solos-head") for granted and have all the pieces sound the same I try
to create a different idea for each piece so that they all sound different.
> ESTHETICS
> III.1 Do you believe that the music you are playing can be heard/analyzed
> within the traditional parameters of melody, harmony, rhythm, etc.? Or
> does one need to develop a new set of parameters to appreciate it (I am
> thinking of less codified notions like tension, distortion, series,
> flux, field, sampling, parody, etc., i.e., aspects that aren't
> usually rendered by the usual system of musical notation)?
You need everything at your disposal to hear music. Melody, harmony, rhythm
are basic ingredients but there are also other issues. Music needn't always conform to our ideas of these elements but we should not exclude any of them
either. Sometimes the basic parameters of music as taught in school become the only things people learn to use in their listening. I find that even
listening Mozart demands much more that the basic ideas of melody, harmony,
rhythm. Sometimes it's interesting to listen to something like Boulez or
Schoenberg and then listen to Hayden or Mozart. I find that the Hayden or Mozart sound much different in that context.
> III.2. A long debate has developed over the past century to decide whether
> music was a "mimetic" art: do you feel your music "re-presents" something
> else than sounds (feelings, visions, ideas, states of things)?
> If yes, what does it represent?
> If no, what is the role of the titles you choose to name your
> compositions? Don't they indicate some sort of "reference" from the music
> to something that is exterior to it?
The issue of what a music can represent is personal to each listener and the
baggage that they bring to the experience. Otherwise music is just sounds.
The titles are simply verbal attachments used to refer to one piece or
another. I choose the titles based more on the sound of the title than any
descriptive meaning although there may be an intuitive association in my
mind. That is not to say that that pieces of music mean anything, they do
not. Even if there is a reference or a meaning in my mind as a composer this
can never fully translate to someone else accurately because of the abstract
nature of music. If a listener perceives a parallel with something in life that's fine but there are no fixed meanings.
> III.3. Another classical theory of music has portrayed it as a way to
> depict "a harmonious world", an ideal universe of perfect and pleasing
> proportions. In your musical creations, are you trying to produce an
> ideal beauty? Or are you rather trying to express struggles and imperfect
> states? In other words: do you intend to please your listener's ear, or
> to surprise it, or to challenge it?
None of the above. I have no concept of ideal beauty. I simply try to make
music that satisfies me on a physical level, the physical sensation of hearing things, their shapes, sounds etc. Sometimes as a composer I may base
these shapes on my perceptions of daily life but again this is not the point
of the music. The concept of an ideal universe or struggles and imperfect
states seems somehow limiting in that I would have to decide before hand what
that was. I prefer to let the music lead me and discover things about life and the universe that way. I feel that rather than making discoveries through
so called logical verbal thought processes I find better revelations through
my own physical body through examination of my responses and feelings about
various stimulus. Our bodies contain endless information built up over time.
If we are open to that we can find many revelations.
> III.4. I tend to believe that an essential aspect of 20th century art
> consists in opening the listener's/viewer's/reader's mind, in leading
> him/her to question his/her perceptive and evaluative habits. Do you see
> this "habit-breaking" function as essential, marginal, coincidental or
> irrelevant to your creative work?
I do not feel the need to cause people to break habits. That is a personal
issue in their lives. That is a separate issue from the music. Of course
habits may be impediments to a person's ability to gain satisfaction from my
or anyone else's music but that is not a component of my work. It is a
component of human perception. Of course I realize that my music may instigate or confront these habits, I see it all the time in the reactions
from audiences. I find that to be a good thing since anytime a person stops
to reassess something they thought they new they are liable to make a
discovery and better their lives in some way. But it's not my job through
music to do this. I do not want to reduce my music to this function.
> POLITICS
> IV.1. Would you say that your music is aimed mostly at making the listener
> "enjoy sounds", or would you say it aims (also) at making him/her "think"?
Thinking, feeling it's all the same thing. Thinking is more or less verbal,
feeling is non verbal but I think/feel that they are the same thing. The
issue boils down to sensation versus ideas. That is a false dichotomy for me.
We do not have to keep these things separate, they are really one thing, one
experience. If a person is stimulated by hearing my music that is enough for
me.
> IV.2. Do you hope that, after listening to your music, your listener will
> become a "better person"?
I hope to be a force for good in the world (as Coltrane once said) and I
suppose someone could take that from my music but it's hard to say what
effect any music will have on any person. It would seem presumptuous of me to define what is a "better person". I am not responsible for anyone's personal growth. It's rewarding when someone says that they have felt that listening
to my music was a rewarding experience but that's something I have little or
no control over. I might hope that someone would hear my music and realize
that they cannot take much for granted in it and perhaps transfer that idea
to life, but again, as much as I value the freedom to make music I should allow the listener the freedom to react in whatever fashion they want.
> IV.3. If yes, in which way can you achieve this goal of transforming your
> listener (for the better)? In other words, how can (a certain type of)
> music help us develop a different perception of the world and of
> ourselves?
Perhaps open-mindedness. Transferring the listening process to other aspects
of life. It becomes problematic to take this too much farther since there are so many individuals each with their own reaction to any given type of music.
I suppose that any time a person is confronted with something new to them is
an opportunity for them to open themselves or close themselves to it or
perhaps simply remain neutral.
> IV.4. Do you conceive of your musical output as articulated with a
> political agenda (in the broadest sense of the word "political", i.e.,
> attempting to influence the manner in which the individuals interact
> within a given society)? If yes, can you briefly summarize the main
> features of this agenda?
Again, it is difficult to be specific here. I have no specific goals in mind
for influencing the behavior of individuals. My music is simply there for
anyone who wishes to share in it. I view that as a rather private and personal experience. Beyond that the person is on their own in terms of their
interaction with society and their relationship to music.
> IV.5. What would you answer to the critics who might say that your music
> is "elitist" (because it is not consumed by "the masses")?
Just because my music is not understood by the masses does not imply that I
wish it to be so. Elitist implies superiority. I feel that anyone should be
able to listen to and get something from my music. It is not designed to
appeal only to elitists. Elitist also implies class distinction. I do not
endorse that in my music. One must examine the reasons that mass culture is
not exposed to nor seems receptive to new music. Corporations dictate in
large measure what we will wind up hearing in general. Of course they claim
to be responsive to the desires of the majority but there is a huge influence that is brought to bear on the culture when young people are exposed to only an extremely limited amount of options in terms of music (among many other things). To acquiesce to charges of elitism I would have to surrender to the
crushing influence of purely capitalist forces. Why should I change my music
to accommodate that? Heartfelt expression is not an elitist concept, it's a
populist one.
> IV.6. How do you explain the fact that your audience is usually restricted
> to fairly limited circles (compared to those who listen to Kenny G or the
> Rolling Stones)? Do you see it as a constant phenomenon in the history of
> art? a failure of our educational system? the result of a conspiracy?
All of the above. A conspiracy to make money at the expense of every other aspect of human lives and endeavors is certainly a contributing factor.
Conspiracy may seem to be a strong word but there is certainly at least a
tacit understanding among most business men that they need not address social
concerns or bear much responsibility to the public in relation to the
profound effect their activities have on the culture. It's about making the
largest amount of money in the shortest amount of time while looking the
other way.
> IV.7 What do you think musicians like you can do to enlarge the circle of
> their audience?
Keep playing heartfelt, sincere music. A steady grassroots approach will
always sustain at least a modest audience. It's part of human nature (albeit a small part sometimes) to be interested in alternatives to the majority.
There will always be at least a small audience for that. In a capitalistsociety there is always the temptation to abandon the sincerity of the work
in order to appeal to more people and make more money. The trick is to slowly
build your audience and realize that bigger is not always better.
> ECONOMICS
> V.1. Do you feel this market-driven society allows creators like yourself
> to develop their art? Do you believe that a consumerist mass-media
> society like ours can leave any viable place for original creativity?
I feel that what I do is independent of these structures. I find ways to survive economically while having time to pursue the music. Currently I am able to do both. It has not always been this way, nor will it necessarily
always continue to be this way. I am not completely against capitalism , just
it's excesses. It is possible to be creative in this society, it's just not
easy. For me it's been the result of a long view of development. If you hang
in there long enough you might develop the loyalty of an audience that
recognizes the qualities in you that they admire such as stick to it-ness and
the intensity that can only be achieved through devoting one's life to an
endeavor. Even if they don't always like or understand the music they can
recognize these basic human qualities.
> V.2. How would you compare the economics of creative music-making in the
> USA with the situation in Europe?
The economics in the USA are far more difficult than in Europe, nearly
impossible one might say.
> V.3. There was a recent debate in Cadence Magazine about the role the
> State should (or should not) play in funding the Arts. What is your
> position on this issue? What would you say of taxes (for instance a 1%
> levied on any form of advertisement) designed to finance artistic
> endeavors like yours?
The majority of all art is subsidized in one form or another. In a capitalist society there is little room for art without subsidies, except for the very
few most popular artists. The alternative these days seems to be corporate
sponsorship which has it's own problems. For one thing it tends to make the
artists salespeople for whatever products the corporation is selling. Do I
really want to stand in front of a huge sign that says "Texaco" while a play?
The other aspect of it is that since the corporations are only interested in
the exposure for their product, the vast majority of the money goes towards
advertising. Artist still have to struggle with the same market forces even
with corporate sponsorship.
> V.4. If you had to propose one economico-political reform to create a
> better environment for the arts, what would it be?
I don't know. There are many good ideas but they all have the same problem.
It is the mentality of reactionary conservative politics that assume that art
is not really a necessity that needs support in the culture. The awareness
must change. It's a constant battle.
Return to Interviews/Articles/Reviews
Home * News & Updates... * Appearances
Biography/Press * Interviews/Articles/Reviews * Discography
In My Own Words... * Distribution * Mail Order * Bibliography * Bookings * Sites
Email Address
eskelin@earthlink.net