A Lark Ascending

In the same way that some people might regard moving from reading Steinbeck to reading Shakespeare as progress. Back to that over-reverence for established canons. ***************************** We often talk about jazz as if it's a monolith, yet there are so many different musics working under that umbrella. I've experienced Bill's original situation of the jazz club/concert hall with a handful of older listeners. But thinking about it, when I used to go to Cheltenham there was much more of a mix. But I suspect that had a lot to do with the enormous breadth of the bill, deliberately trying to attract a younger audience who might not be hung up on the history like we tend to be (most of whom are probably looking for a one night stand rather than a lifetime's engagement with jazz). Yet within that festival I could go to gigs where the age range was much more slanted on the elderly side. There's a relatively new festival in the UK that seems to be succeeding that very much aims that way. This was last year's bill: And here's a picture - not sure from what year: Don't see anyone there with a notepad checking matrix numbers. So maybe the jazz audience is more varied, age-wise, than we fear. It just depends where you look. Where I suspect it is far more homogeneous is in terms of class. (Here is this year; imagine there's some serious market research behind this: ]

I was listening to this one the other day: Great fun. I really like that end of Criss-Cross that explores the late 60s sound-world - Blake, Sipiagin, Herwig, Binney etc. And Kozlov is a tremendous bass player - remember seeing him with the Mingus Big Band (in fact a few of these chaps appear there too).

Oh wow! I find most herbal/flavoured teas insipid but this is amazing. Real body. Very sweet though apparently that all comes from the root. Tried it last Friday and have been hooked since.

Not to mention the classical thread with people endlessly banging on about the latest remake of the Elgar Cello Concerto, Shostakovich symphonies (or Sibelius ones come to that!!!!) (one of those smileys denoting a gentle bit of ribbing). I won't even mention the Dead Maestro idolatry...oh dear, I did. ****************** Jazz fans like to portray their (our?) music as more sophisticated and innovative than rock/pop. But I tend to find jazz reconstructions of rock/pop songs actually more conservative. Rock/pop might be cursed by leaden rhythms at times but musicians there are not afraid to shift metres mid song, mix up the instrumentation etc. The harmonies might be more oblique in jazz but, more often than not, the irregularities of the pop song get squashed into a regular swing rhythm. I was listening to David Kikoski's take on Brian Wilson's 'Surf's Up' last night. All very enjoyable but the jazz version was unable to breath with anything like the naturalness of the original. Reminded me of my early days of trying to come to terms with jazz having been used to multi-coloured prog rock with shifting time signatures and then finding a music that, once it started, generally kept to the same tempo throughout, used a limited range of instruments who appeared on every track, often soloing in the same order (with the inevitable trading fours after the drum solo). I know that's a stereotype but if you are coming from pop/rock it's going to initially seem a bit monochrome.

Some people will. But that sort of music has a tiny audience. It might seem otherwise at a dedicated New York or London venue with millions living within commuting distance. I can't imagine many turning out for it in the market town I live in. We don't even get mainstream jazz here! Remember that in its determination to confront conformity and stereotype much of that music deliberately throws out or disguises the things most people recognise as music - recognisable melody (in the sense of tunes), a danceable beat, standard harmony. There is no doubt that if you are receptive to having your prejudices about music confronted then it can be enjoyed by anyone. But, as you said earlier, most people's interest in music doesn't go that far (and there's no reason it should).

I think that is the heart of it. Through most of its existence jazz has been a pretty broad church able to cover a range of music from the easily accessible to the complex, obscure and elliptical. Some people drawn by the former find their way to the latter. There is still plenty of easy-to-listen to jazz (think of all those Criss Cross albums [which I like!]) but the idiom is one from long ago and hard to connect to from modern popular music. I don't know what it's like in other parts of the world but there have also been plenty of young bands in Britain mixing up jazz/improvisation with a punkier, ambient or whatever style more familiar to a younger audience - Seb Rochford, a great jazz drummer, constantly says that he listens mainly to alternative rock so it's natural it comes out in what he plays. Yet I'm not sure that approach has done much to win a sustained audience. Bands like Polar Bear and Acoustic Ladyland seemed to be the next big thing ten years ago (I was convinced they were) yet seem to have settled into a marginal place on the edge of jazz and the indie-rock scene. Part of me feels that it's in the natural order of things for genres to be born, grow and then die. Maybe jazz as we know it (music with a significant amount of improvisation placing a premium on swing and a strong connection with a blues/American popular music tradition) is on its way out. But the heyday of jazz is still in living memory and so music will continue to be made in that tradition to service that group of enthusiasts. But after that... We'd like to believe that some of the jazz made in the 20thC is 'timeless' and that it will continue to be listened to like Bach, Mozart or Beethoven. But I somehow doubt that jazz has enough support from those who decide what will remain in the canon to be kept as a cultural essential in the way classical music is. I find it hard to believe that the idea of music with a strong improvised element will not continue; but it won't sound like what we are used to. Maybe the sort of music Steve champions is already well down that path.

Glad to hear Ray's has survived the move. I'd imagine it probably does reasonably well because there is virtually no competition. Having said that, I've been in there maybe four times in the last 8 months and only bought two CDs. In both cases things that weren't available as downloads, so were a similar price online to in-store. I found what was there to be quite patchy, though strong on new releases. The latter were at least double the price I'm now used to paying (admittedly downloads). Which is why these places struggle with all but those who prefer physical discs.

I think it was one of your posts that alerted me to them. Listened on Spotify to their first record. Enjoyed it. Whilst looking for some info on the band I stumbled on that Leadmill page. The Leadmill is not that far from me but at my age I'd probably get arrested if I tried to get into the nightclub.

Maybe Alan Barnes and Dave O'Higgins should try a promotion like this to up their audience: http://leadmill.co.uk/events/syd-arthur/ (Look at the bonus under the band photo)

I think that explains a great deal. Jazz tends to market itself as something that is not popular music [the music for grown ups thing]. Though when contemporary jazz musicians use currently popular material, they don't seem to attract a sizeable young audience and generally annoy their core audience! [i think that statement needs a smiley denoting a tongue in cheek comment] Very difficult to work this out for sure as we are all talking anecdotally. I'd imagine you are going to get a very different audience in, say a vibrant and hip area like downtown New York, and a suburban arts centre in regional Britain. The last two free jazz events I went to - Keith Tippett at the Vortex and Evan Parker in London appeared to me to have a mix of audience in age terms but weighted in favour of the middle to older audience member (but my memory might be playing tricks). I'd imagine that places like The Vortex, Cafe Otto have a certain hipness about them in reputation terms and so might draw more widely than the Rochdale Jazz Club (not sure if that exists). As for disposable income, I'm not sure that works in age terms. I earn appreciably more than my 20-something colleagues. But I know I spend far less on concert tickets than they do (some of those festival prices are eye-watering). Younger people may have less but they spend more of it (I know I did at that age). It used to be said that the audience for folk music was mainly teachers and social workers. Might be worth plotting attendance at those clubs getting 20 people against the school holidays.

Back before the 80s if you were at home there wasn't that much to stimulate you - TV, reading, listening to the radio or record player, teasing your siblings. So you developed ways of focussing on some of those activities quite intensely (hopefully not the teasing!). Today there are so many forms of stimulation and visuals are usually a key part of them. Is it any wonder that watching a jazz quartet or an orchestra might not seem like a good night out to anyone who has not received some guidance with regard to how to listen or what to listen for? Lots of young people do find their way to that music - but I'd think I could guess what the results would show if you were to quantify those who become engaged on a social class basis.

"Get off my lawn".

I think that's something of a myth. Those of us who buy in to what is often described as middlebrow or high culture are conditioned to believe that as we get older we need something deeper. Another old chestnut in that vein is the idea that as we get older we pare down to the vital essentials, having no time for the merely good...out go the symphonies and we drift into the sunset communing with late Beethoven quartets. The only difference between being young and old is that, if we're interested enough in music to keep listening to it, we've heard vastly more and therefore have much more of a context to hear it within. I certainly understand what I'm hearing more than I did at 21 (though not nearly as well as I might have done if I'd studied music or learned an instrument). But do I need something more profound and engaging? I tend to find that sometimes I'm looking for music that will puzzle me, make me think a bit, not get for a long time but enjoy gnawing at; and at others I want music that grabs me instantly and makes me dance round the house. Was Louis Armstrong making music for adults when he recorded the Hot Fives and Sevens in the late 20s? I suspect he was making music to excite a mainly young audience but also satisfying his own creativity and curiosity by shaping it in intriguing and novel ways. The reverence for those recordings today by adults who believe they are listening to something adult and profound is an historical projection placed onto that music, part of the way we deify the past and create canons of great 'art' (which is not to demean the quality of the music itself). There's plenty of music satisfying for adults being made in genres outside those usually held to be respectable by the (mainly) adult, (frequently) self-appointed curators of the cultural world. Anyway, most of the adults don't turn up for jazz, opera or classical concerts either.

But I bet they are very middle class (or above) younger listeners! Used to make me laugh at Appleby. In the main tent there'd be a few hundred people (mainly greyhairs with a few younger people) with a line of beer barrels along the back. In the Freezone venue there'd be around fifty greyhairs and a few younger people. At the break Evan Parker would serve wine.

I suspect people are growing up with very different expectations of a live event. I grew up in the first flowering of the rock (as opposed to rock'n roll!) era and even then the standard way of behaving was to sit politely (usually cross-legged on a student union floor) and listen (yes, something very different was happening in the T.Rex concert in town, but...). So you had an audience who went expecting to listen. Many of them crossed over into other musics that required more in the way of focussed listening. When I talk with younger colleagues they have no patience with that. They want an interactive event, jumping up and down, physically involved with the excitement (maybe a return to the original use of popular music as an accompaniment to dancing). They only ones who actively seek out sit down concerts are those who have been schooled in that tradition through studying music, an instrument or coming from a home where that sort of concert environment is valued. It's interesting but one of the sure ways to get an 'inadequate' judgement in an OFSTED inspection in the last few years is to talk too much while the students listen. Active learning has become the centre of everything - I was told a few years back by and inspector that all I needed to do was set up the activity and then let the kids get on with it while I had a cup of tea!. Certainly in the state sector children are rarely required to sit and listen; the emphasis is on doing. Which might explain why a classical or jazz concert might be unattractive. I'm not knocking active learning - I do lots of it - just speculating why what is (mistakenly to my mind) referred to as a passive activity might not appeal. [Nor am I suggesting there is anything deficient in 'young people today' who strike me as much the same as they've ever been, just with different experiences]. Jazz (like classical) doesn't help itself by presenting itself as a musical genre that emphasises revering the 'canon' over the excitement that comes from hearing new music. As a young listener what thrilled me was hearing the new music coming out rather than getting to know old Blue Notes or Dead Maestros. Every now and then jazz (and classical) gets its brief moment of revival...I suspect we're due for one. But I doubt it will be insiders who will make that happen.

I assumed it would be something fluffy with Sarah Lancashire involved. Checked reviews and I'm intrigued. Have put on my rent-a-DVD list for when it comes out. Merci.

Watched the first series a few weeks back and it was brilliant. This second is even more gripping. 5 down with the grand finale tomorrow.

If ever a body of music called out to be permanently available... Ridiculous that it exists only for those of us who were lucky to be in the market when it came out. Cries out to be available for download.

Now I understand why Bing always appears as the search engine at work. I only ever put one word in that search engine.

The sun came out at 7.30 last evening. And it's there today. First time in a week.

I assume the 'guys' of the title is used in the none-gender specific way that under 40s use the term today. Young teachers use the address 'O.K. guys, you need to quieten down now' or 'Excuse me guys but can you not dangle Stephanie out of that window, we are on the third floor.' Whether the audience are guys (in the old sense), gals or both. Having said that, I don't see many gals.

I don't know many musicians. Two who I have met and chatted with: Alex Hawkins (of this board) - hugely talented and highly original in his music. Yet absolutely no airs and graces. Both times I've spoken with him his sheer love of music has come across. Just like in his posts he is so keen to promote other musicians he loves. Pete Bullock - won't be known by many but he was the keyboard (and other instruments) player in the Albion Band in their greatest incarnation - the one that produced 'Rise Up Like The Sun' and 'Lark Rise to Candleford'. The travelling proved too much and he went into music teaching. Ended up as head of music in the school where I work. Again, unassuming and modest but full of great tales of life on the road. His students loved him.

Not sure if this is surreal. cartoon art or pop art: One of my earliest records. A rock budget record from a time where there were very few.

I scrape my chin on piece of flint. A trick I picked up down the road at Creswell Crags. Worked back then before setting out on a day's hunting woolly mammoths. Why bother with all this newfangled stuff?

I see the 1974 CSN&Y live set is now slated for July: Can't quite work out if the discs are normal CDs or Blu-ray. Maybe its the DVD disc that is Blu-ray though with Young involved I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it on some obscure format (had expected it to be on that My Little Pony gadget he's touting). Anyway, Amazon implies the 3 audio discs are slated for mp3 (has someone tied Young up?) so it might be possible to hear it without changing your hi-fi system. Track list here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/CSNY-1974-Stills-Young-Crosby/dp/B00KJDTUU4/ref=mb_oe_o Should be a nice wallow for those of us of a certain vintage. Hope some of those are long!