Meet Cecil Taylor, The Esoteric Pianist!

CECIL Taylor remains the most controversial and complex pianist since Thelonious Monk. Respected by fellow jazzmen for the intriguing complexity of his piano- playing, he has refused to compromise his standards over the years, a trait which perhaps has kept him from enjoying popular acceptance. Taylor’s accomplishment is not on the same structural plane as McCoy Tyner who has been the most influential pianist in jazz of the past thirty years – with his chord voicings being adopted and utilized by virtually every younger pianist. The point is that while Tyner’s post bop style continues to hover around avant-garde and the conventional- both of which he manages dexterously, Cecil Taylor revels in avant- garde and free jazz with an uncompromising stance.
   When he plays in public, the response is usually divided: Some see him as the world’s greatest performing artist because of the astounding technique and feeling he generates. Some simply put him down as a non- conformist, while others dismiss him outright because they are at a loss to understand what he is trying to do and where he is coming from.
   I think Taylor is just a creative artist, whose idea of jazz is to continuously reach out to higher levels of creativity and performance, believing that the artist must continually strive to be himself, uninfluenced by prevailing trends, regardless of what the critics say. Taylor is his own critic; and has strong views about music and musicians. He believes that more than anyone else, he has a deep knowledge, an inner perception of the art form called jazz. He’s critical of other musicians:
    Of Miles Davis for instance, Taylor says: “He is the first   millionaire I ever heard play pretty well.” Of perceived European influences on Duke Ellington: “He doesn’t sound European to me.” Of Dizzy Gillespie’s comedy: “I don’t put him down for it. I just don’t go hear him.” Of white jazz musicians:  “All white musicians try to copy the feeling. What any musician must do, and this is why most white musicians fail in jazz, they never come to grips with themselves and their own musical tradition s. They always get involved in competing. What they should do is recognize the function that they have in a jazz group and to function out of it with the whole history of America, which is theirs. That’s what America is. All these people. And to know what to do with all these things, blend them and make them to go on, that’s what creating the new music is all about.”
   Taylor has become terribly unpopular for his strong views and frank criticisms. But rather than believe that such blunt attitudes have helped to keep him out of work, Taylor believes it has been strictly a musical matter in which his critics and the establishment are trying to kill the tradition. According to him,” Jazz is the only art form in which the tradition can be seen, and you consciously can gain from it if you wish. Jazz is the only art form in which you can see your different generations working together, and see how they are growing.”
   Considering the high level of Taylor’s musicianship, ideals and the strong views he holds about jazz, Taylor deserves the same popular acclaim that such pianists as Herbie Hancock, Horace Silver, McCoy Tyner, Oscar Peterson, John Lewis of the Modern Jazz Quartet and more are enjoying today. But probably the single, most crushing blow to Taylor’s career came in 1959, with the enormous impact on the New York musical scene of the alto saxophonist Ornette Coleman. Taylor argues that they play music in different ways, a fact that is quite true, but some influential critics who had thought that Taylor would  bring about the breakthrough they had been waiting for abandoned  Taylor’s cause and made Coleman the centre of the most violent jazz controversy in several years. Since that time, Taylor has gone about his work practically without notice. Nonetheless, he has continued, over the years, to make music – apparently for the selective minority who are appreciative of chords and dischords, atonalities and the esoteric.
    One significant outing came for Taylor, however, in 1973 – when he recorded Indent on Arista label. Contrary to the misconception about the free form nature of Taylor’s delving, he reveals himself here as something of a structuralist, albeit a peculiar one working from a floating atonal system. Taylor’s improvisations are as remarkable for their elastic musical quality as for their emotional momentum. And perhaps therein lies a key to approaching Taylor’s music. Analytical appeal aside, Taylor’s music speaks to us in terms of universal humanity, and we can savour his intent in much the same way we would an unfamiliar language. If the content is confusing, the inflections, his elation, anger, humour and torment - speak copiously for themselves. As an album, Indent is rendered in three ‘layers’, what the classicists would refer to as ‘movements’. But in view of the combination of serious motives and cross motives cast in rapid sequence, ‘layers’ appear to be the most appropriate word for describing the density of  his piano constructions.
    Cecil Taylor has made some of the most indelible statements of his bold career – seated alone at the piano. Over the years, his solo performances have taken on a protean, orchestral dimension, and his compositions – most of which are plangent and have to do with living things – have grown increasingly involved and dramatic. Like Keith Jarrett, Taylor is a fountain of digital illuminations with the feel for wining dynamics and tension. But unlike Jarrett, he is rarely wasteful or redundant, and never condescending. Nor does Taylor, his politics notwithstanding, make music for the masses. If he communicates, it is in spite of his creation, and if we listen, it is in spite of our pre - conceptions.
Taylor is a classicist and visionary, probably the most advanced pianist of our time, regardless of idioms. Miss him or reject him if you will, if this generation refuses to appreciate the significance of his delving, your children will certainly inherit his dream.