story by Jacob S. Knabb
photo by Jim Newberry

Jeff Parker is without question one of the finest guitarists working today. "Abstract, but ultimately melodic," he's influenced by "life, love, hatred of George W. Bush, Charlie Parker and Ruby Parker." If he'd only performed in Tortoise, he'd be a critical success and a household name among the folks at Dusted and NME.

But Parker has also put together a string of fine solo releases, as well as collaborating with some amazing musicians, with Ken Vandermark and Azita Youssefi among them. Parker excels in collaboration as he seems always to cater his sound to the music, in search of connectivity.

On his solo records these relative connections abound. It's readily apparent that the sounds cradling your eardrum have most definitely seen the woodshop. While his critics are eager for seemingly impossible one-upmanship, Parker is content to probe music for the ineffable: the human condition - an impossible task at best, but one to which his sound is moving towards constantly. It seems connectivity like this is seldom achieved, leaving many musicians grappling with tradition and expectation.

PARKER'S INNER VIEW "You have more freedom to experiment in Chicago, in ways that would be difficult to initiate in other places. There's a support system of labels and distributors, performance venues, and an audience that likes to hear some weird shit. What more could you want?"

So, how does Parker's navigation of this aesthetic philosophy in his solo work differ from his more recognizable efforts with Tortoise and Isotope 71? Is he working toward the same aesthetic concerns? Or are the two modes mutually exclusive?

Chicago Innerview asked Parker these very questions, and here's what he had to say:

"The most obvious difference is the people involved. Tortoise and Isotope were, and are, collectively operating ensembles, where the personalities, interests and experiences of those involved are embraced and have a direct influence on the music that is created. That said, my own projects don't employ a contradictory aesthetic. As birds of a feather tend to flock together, I'm attracted to people who imagine a similar ideal through music. The lens of experience reflects in different ways, but the aesthetic seems to remain the same."

Chicago Innerview: Why did you pick Thrill Jockey for Relatives?
Jeff Parker: I knew the folks at Thrill Jockey would do an outstanding job. Hell, they always do. But mostly, I wanted it to be released on vinyl.

CI: How does The Relatives function in relation to Like-Coping?
JP: Like-Coping was much more of a performance-based recording, meaning that it was about the documentation of certain moments in time. It was very spontaneous, with the focus on group improvisation. The Relatives is the exact opposite: the focus is on the compositions, and crafting them through the circumstance of the recording studio environment.

CI: Many free-jazz musicians take their cues from Coltrane and his devotees of the wall of notes approach. Yet you seem more interested in space in order to create discord and mood. How did you develop this sensibility?

JP: It's just a matter of how I hear things, with a lot of space. But there has to be density to define the space. The perception of space is relative to the individual. That's one reason why the record is called The Relatives. I don't have the technique to play a lot of notes, so it's also a matter of working within my limitations. I try and create a comfortable space for the listener, so that the ideas come across very clearly. I don't consider myself a free-jazz musician, although I thrive on the energy of experimentation.

CI: Why have you remained in Chicago?
JP: You have more freedom to experiment in Chicago, in ways that would be difficult to initiate in other places. There's a support system of labels and distributors, performance venues, and an audience that likes to hear some weird shit. What more could you want?

Jeff Parker with Sam Barsheshet, Chris Lopes, and Chad Taylor :: Empty Bottle :: February 9.