Chicago Underground Quartet: self-titled

Matt Cibula

Chicago Underground Quartet

Chicago Underground Quartet

Label: Thrill Jockey
US Release Date: 2001-06-19

Start with Chicago trumpeter/electronician Rob Mazurek. He's cool; he's played on albums by Tortoise and Stereolab and Isotope 217 and all those cool Chicago people whose names critics drop like breadcrumbs so we can find our way out of the woods. Mazurek started a workshop for like-minded young post-jazzbos like himself at the Green Mill on Chicago's North Side -- that's the coolest place in the entire world. Rob Mazurek is undeniably cool.

So you have him and you add percussionist Chad Taylor and they become the Chicago Underground Duo. That sounds cool. Add bass player Noel Kupersmith and they're suddenly the Chicago Underground Trio. Extra cool. Here's an ultra-cool move: they added a guitarist named Jeff Parker and still called themselves the Chicago Underground Trio for one album. But now that Parker is apparently a full-fledged cast member, they are the Chicago Underground Quartet. Excellent history, great name, completely cool.

Still not convinced of the coolness? Hang on for more evidence: 1. This record was produced by John McEntire. (And we ALL know who he is.) 2. The album's total length is only about 41 minutes. (Roots move. Classy.) 3. All four members get individual writing credits, and the free-jazz piece is credited to the group. 4. The packaging is super-minimal: shiny bronze paper with silver lettering, impossible to read but oh so pretty. 5. They're on Thrill Jockey, for god's sake.

So now that we've established how cool this release by the Chicago Underground Quartet is, the only conclusion we can reach is how uncool I am for not falling for it head over heels like a good critic. What's wrong with me if I'm left flat by this ultra-stylish indie-cred-out-the-ass release? I don't know.

I'm not completely out of the loop. I can appreciate the fact that all these guys are excellent musicians with big jazz ears. Mazurek can go from Freddie Hubbard-type bumblebee hovering to On the Corner-era Miles at the drop of a porkpie hat, and his techno touches are what set this group apart from all the other quartets. Taylor's drumming is muscular when it needs to be and quiet as a mouse at other times. Parker's sound is huge here, whether he's playing complex lines (on which he sometimes veers into Steve Howe's work with Yes territory) or chiming chords. And Kupersmith is solid if unspectacular. They're probably four of the tightest and most precise young jazz musicians working today . . . and they're all in the same quartet!

So it's not the musicianship that's lacking here. Nor is it the CUQ's attempt to create a new kind of music with the jazz and the electronics and the occasional instrumental-rock feel. That part I like too, if only because it'll cause moldy-fig jazz critics absolute fits to have to review. So is there a piece missing? Or is it just my uncoolness getting in my own way?

I'll just say it: the CUQ played it safe this album, and it didn't pay off. Nothing here really tries very hard to make an impression, even the supposedly "free" track, "Sink, Charge, Fixture". Mazurek's opener, "Tunnel Chrome", makes use of repeated guitar arpeggios for the others to solo over and interact with, which is pretty cool; but then they use the Exact Same Trick on Track three, Taylor's "A Re-occurring Dream" except with an angular slinky 12-bar figure. (Another track credited to Mazurek, titled "Welcome", bears a suspicious resemblance to parts of John Coltrane's beautiful "Welcome" off of Kulu Se Mama. Hmmm.) Parker had the chance to come up with some interesting contrasts by titling his pieces "Four in the Afternoon" and "Three in the Morning", but they're completely unrelated and don't really stand out from each other either. It just doesn't seem very Underground to make a jazz album (or post-jazz or whatever this is) that reveals so little about the participants . . . but maybe I'm not cool enough to understand that either.

When this CD is over, I hit play again, hoping to discover what I missed about it, looking for a way to understand the vibe I'm obviously missing. But no dice. I'm left out in the cold by this cool album by this cool band.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.