Patricia pointed out something so obvious that I’d never seen
it, namely that what drew me to them was the fact that like them, I was
different, even, to some degree, from my family and friends, let alone
from the culture I was ‘embedded’ in. So different in fact, that in
many ways I couldn’t relate to it except on a very superficial level.
This doesn’t explain however, the emotional and spiritual impact the
music of Cannonball had on me, but then jazz is like that especially
when distilled down to the pure artistry of Cannonball’s playing. There
is no doubt some underlying quantum logic that explains Cannonball’s
ability to produce phrasing of such purity, to distil the essence of
the music down to eight, sixteen or thirty-two bars. It’s as if
somewhere in his brain, there is some kind of process at work that
strips out every single redundant note and he does it as he plays.
There is simply nothing remotely like it in any other musical form.
On a formal level, jazz relies on tension and release, the
dynamic interplay between rythmn and the progression of the notes
played, whether it’s the melody or harmonies but like progressive
politics or for that matter the ideas explored in the best of science
fiction, they all operate ‘outside the box’, pushing the boundaries
into areas as yet unexplored which inevitably meets resistance. And
there is too, more than a romantic element to all three.
Does this mean that lefties are by definition, outsiders, the exception
to the rule? Are we forever condemned to be on the periphery of society
along with Jazz musicians, science fiction writers and other ‘oddballs’?
I think not, as one generation’s outsiders and their ideas are the
next’s orthodoxy even if not seen or accepted as such. Thus the
revolutionary ideas of Marx and socialism for example, have been
absorbed into the mainstream of thinking even if this is denied by the
dominant culture and whether the ruling political class admit it or
not, into the thinking and activities of the state and its political
class.
The ‘neo-liberals’ for example, represent the desire of the capitalist
class to ‘turn back the clock’ to a time before Marx, before socialism
became a worldwide movement but in spite of all their efforts to do
this they have failed miserably, resorting finally to the only thing
they are any good at, the use of brute force and the overwhelming
violence that only the state can command. And still, the ideas of Marx
and revolutionary socialists not only are they still with us but the
have arisen anew, in new locations and in new forms but true to their
roots and to their global heritage.
What better proof do we have of how deeply embedded have socialist
ideas become than the resurgence of the revolutionary impulse in Latin
and Central America? And they have returned refreshed and reinforced by
the lessons learned from the 20th century, a process that is by no
means complete.
But what possible connection can there be between Cannonball and
Revolution? Well actually there are lots of connections. Jazz, like
revolution is a journey, one that is constantly evolving, responding to
circumstances, absorbing all kinds of influences but without altering
its central leit motif (but unfortunately something the left in West
have failed miserably to do. We seem to be stuck along with our
capitalist masters in trying to recapture the past).
Counterpose the process we on the global left have gone through with
that of the capitalists and its protractors, a class that has moved (or
tried to) inexorably backwards, forever trying to recapture a time when
it was itself a revolutionary force.
We on the other hand at least—and this important, on the front
line—even though we have suffered setback after setback, have
nevertheless shown resiliency and ingenuity in the face of enormous
odds. Constantly regrouping, licking our wounds and incorporating the
successes as well as learning from the failures. Thus we do move
forward, unevenly it is true and quite often unpredictably as the
emergence of the ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ demonstrates.
Even the Cuban Revolution has survived and amazingly prospered, if
somewhat battered and bruised after bearing the brunt of US imperialism
for fifty years! And surely the enduring quality of the Cuban
Revolution, truly ‘our’ revolution, that is to say, the people of my
generation and later, points to the power we have, a power that even
the most heavily armed nation the world has ever seen, has not been
able to overcome.
The capitalist media, when faced with what was meant to be a spent
force, uses a predictable tactic; it tries to identify the
revolutionary movements of today with those of the past but it does it
by equating today’s movements with the failures of the past. Hence in
the UK, it talks of a return of the ‘hard left’ thus conjuring up
images from the Britain of the 1970s and 80s. The demon of the Miners’
Strike is exhumed, led, we are told, by people who were bent on
‘destroying the British way of life’ which today is echoed by the
‘alien force’ amongst us, also bent on destroying the ‘British way of
life’.
In Latin America, when describing Hugo Chavez, it describes him as a
“protegé of Fidel Castro” (Independent, 11/1/07), as if somehow Chavez
is no more than a puppet of Castro’s ‘evil designs’. When describing
Daniel Ortega’s victory in Nicaragua, it talks about him as a “foe” of
the United States, when in fact it’s the US government that is the
enemy of the people of Nicaragua. Nicaragua didn’t declare war on the
US either covertly or overtly, it was the US that invaded and destroyed
the Sandinista Revolution. But note that the US used the excuse of the
Sandinistas being a ‘protegé’ of the Soviet Union, just as US support
for UNITA in Angola (along with Apartheid South Africa) was justified
on the basis of the MPLA being a “proxy” for the Cubans, who were in
turn, a “proxy” for the Soviet Union.
Nowhere in the capitalist media will it acknowledge the fact that when
faced with the onslaught of international capital and its mercenary
armies, countries resist and produce entirely local responses, borne
out of the unique conditions that exist, for example in Venezuela or
even in Iraq albeit without an apparent left component (though we are
so ill-informed by the internal nature of the resistance that who is to
say what, if any role the Iraqi left plays?.
Instead, resistance is always the result of some outside force just as
it’s ‘al-Qu’eda’ that has fomented the ‘insurgency’ in Iraq for to
admit that the revolutionary impulse is something intrinsic to all
countries and all situations is to recognise that people can and do
think for themselves. Only the rulers are allowed the ‘luxury’ of
thinking for themselves.
But thinking for yourself is dangerous, it labels you as a rebel if
your thinking strays outside what the dominant culture views as
acceptable. And as the current situation so ably demonstrates, what is
acceptable shrinks with every passing day so that now, even
thinking unacceptable thoughts is a punishable offence and
will
and does land you in jail. The full force of the state is brought to
bear on anyone who ‘strays’ into areas that it considers dangerous to
the
status quo.
What this reveals is a state that is so
insecure it has to abandon even the fiction of capitalist democracy.
Yet, although the current situation is approaching the extreme, the
basic premise still holds true namely being yourself, if it strays from
the acceptable, is dangerous regardless, whether it's your sexuality or
your musical tastes (look at how society has demonised hip-hop) never
mind your politics.
Deviation is of course allowed but only within boundaries set by the
dominant culture, especially if they challenge the values that are
deemed to maintain the current
status quo.
Thus discourse for example, about the invasion and occupation of Iraq
is confined within strict limits. It’s okay to name Tony Blair as
‘mistaken’ or ‘misguided’ (‘he meant well’ or ‘he acted out of the best
of intentions’) but never a liar or worse still, a war criminal.
It should be apparent therefore, that those who challenge the
status quo
are almost inevitably labelled as ‘oddballs’, for to do so means being
cast out of the mainstream of society, condemned to the outer realms,
where the ‘non-conformists’ live. To be one’s self is the most
difficult thing in the world to achieve and what they fear most, for
once achieved it is impossible to destroy except physically.
To
some, these may seem blindingly obvious observations to make but how
many of us go through life never actually living our own lives but
instead living lives dictated by others? Yet let us not be too quick to
judge (as many on the left are unfortunately so quick to do) those who
for whatever reason, acquiesce and choose the ‘easy’ way, life’s a
struggle and we have control over so little of it and often what we do
have control over is of little consequence.
But, and it’s a big but, there is no doubt that things are, as they
say, coming to a head, the question remains whether in the coming
period of chaos we are to remain either no more than onlookers or
victims (the ‘winners’ will be few and far between and their winnings
will for the most part, be pyrhhic in nature).
Writings 
One of my earliest musical influences was the great Julian ‘Cannonball’ Adderley, whose music to this day still makes my hair stand on end. When I was a teenager, I was an avid devourer of Downbeat Magazine where I discovered a company in New York on Broadway somewhere called Music by Mail, where you could buy three albums for $10, which in those days was around £5 (hey, we’ve come full circle, that’s pretty much what ten bucks is worth today!), still a lot for a kid but when you consider a single album could cost more than that, especially the then much sought after Blue Note imports, I leapt at the chance and ordered my first three which were, ‘Them Dirty Blues’ by the Cannonball Adderley Quintet, Johnny Griffin’s ‘Big Soul Band’ and ‘Little Niles’ by the pianist Randy Weston, all on another legendary label, Riverside.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
