Jazz Nerd column

[Hot Ptah]

Here is an article from the new issue of OffBeat magazine, about the Jazz Nerd phenomenon:

http://www.offbeat.com/2010/07/01/the-definition-of-a-jazz-nerd/

Hopefully the author's last name will not cause the article to be dismissed without some consideration of the points he is making.

[Big Wheel]

Shorter Jason Marsalis: Jazz players have gotten too intellectual. The only solution to this is more school.

[papsrus]

While he paints with a little too broad a brush for my taste, I find it hard to disagree with Marsalis' views that individual virtuosity and compositional and/or improvisational complexity have at times been elevated in jazz or creative improvised music beyond their merit. They sometimes become the main feature or point of the music, rather than a vehicle for it.

I don't fully agree that the only good music is that which acknowledges the past; that it must incorporate swing and blues to be valid. But I think he makes a good point that showy solos and a lack of emphasis on ensemble playing can leave a listener feeling disconnected, fatigued even.

Nate's comments on Han Bennink's seemingly self-indulgent displays at the Vancouver Jazz Fest, where he apparently had little or no regard for his band mates, let alone the audience, would fit along those lines. (See post No. 12 here.)

Edit for typo and to insert link.

Edited July 2, 2010 by papsrus

[Big Wheel]

Marsalis's argument might make a bit of sense if it weren't for his absurd definition:

A jazz nerd—or JNA for short—is a jazz student who reduces all music to notes and concepts only.

While there are a few players out there who do this, the vast majority don't and those who do barely get anywhere. Notice how Marsalis doesn't actually name anyone who fits his definition, only those who influenced the people who fit his definition like Mark Turner, Chris Potter, and Michael Brecker. He's using "good taste" to shield himself from having to illustrate his own argument.

It's hard for me not to see this column as a politically motivated shot across the bow against those who don't conform to the Wynton Marsalis Orthodox Church of Jazz. In typical Marsalis fashion, the piece never forces the powerful to question their own responsibility in the situation. Instead we get the same old mixture of celebrating the bourgeois (those with middlebrow tastes are always right); kissing the ass of those who hold the purse strings (funny how more music education is always a solution); and sweeping history under the rug rather than confronting head-on why players might no longer be interested in playing music the way the Marsalis family likes.

The problem for the Marsalis family was that they fought the easy battle first, against the avant-garde. But there was never any chance they would lose that one; your average American just isn't going to ever warm to Alan Silva's music. Having vanquished that adversary, they now are gearing up to fight a rather harder battle, against Young People Who Make Music That's Too White For Us. What next, the war on People Who Don't Play A Raised 11th On The II7 Chord On The Eleventh Bar Of "Cherokee"? Followed, I'm sure, by the Epic Struggle Against Those Damned Kids Who Won't Get Off My Lawn.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Big Wheel

[Tom Cat]

nice reading, i think i got his point since often i caught myself on the same position, you know hopin to find traces of the tradition in the new music, sometimes i also could say i perceive some pretension on the music technically speaking but in other cases perhaps we are just testyfing the quest of the musician and we have the choice to don't heard if we don't like it.

[JSngry]

The Definition of a Jazz Nerd

You can't make this stuff up.

[Larry Kart]

This passage is yummy:

"In closing, there are those who wonder why I bother? Why am I so outspoken about music? Why not let the music speak for itself? Why am I wasting my time with this subject instead of practicing?"

Can't be entirely sure why I like it so much, except that probably there's no one who wonders why he bothers, why he's so "outspoken," etc. Also, you can't beat that "in closing..."

[Big Wheel]

This passage is yummy:

"In closing, there are those who wonder why I bother? Why am I so outspoken about music? Why not let the music speak for itself? Why am I wasting my time with this subject instead of practicing?"

Can't be entirely sure why I like it so much, except that probably there's no one who wonders why he bothers, why he's so "outspoken," etc. Also, you can't beat that "in closing..."

Isn't there some rule in the Wacky Writers' Wrulebook that says if you're going to write "in closing," you should, you know, hurry up and close it? Rather than write, say, three more paragraphs.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Big Wheel

[JSngry]

I swear, I've read the thing three times now, and damned if I can figure out what his real beef is. He's ranting about nobody referencing any jazz made before 1990, but just what the fuck does that mean? What happened in 1990 that made it such a definitive turning point? He's justifying AEC, Public Enemy and Weather Report as valid sources of information but has some bug up his ass about post-1990 jazz not being a valid point of reference? Where is he going with that?

It's like the guy is paranoid about shit that he knows isn't real, but he feels some compulsion to create a belief in it inside himself anyway. For what reason, god only knows.

I think the Marsalis voodoo kurse has done hit home. The poor man is damn near discomboboolated. Maybe the family can spend that new-found money on Jason, get him into a safe place & get them Bugz out of his Attic.

[bertrand]

He's a Jazz Master now. 'Nuff said.

Bertrand.

[Big Wheel]

I swear, I've read the thing three times now, and damned if I can figure out what his real beef is. He's ranting about nobody referencing any jazz made before 1990, but just what the fuck does that mean? What happened in 1990 that made it such a definitive turning point? He's justifying AEC, Public Enemy and Weather Report as valid sources of information but has some bug up his ass about post-1990 jazz not being a valid point of reference? Where is he going with that?

Though I don't have concrete evidence to back it up, I think the answer is: starting around 1990, the core of the Young Lions (the Marsalises and their inner circle) began to lose their grip on being the only game in town influencing younger players. Brecker's appeal waxed greatly, Turner and Potter and Dave Douglas started recording as leaders, Steve Coleman's M-BASE stuff started catching on a bit. That's what makes this piece so ridiculous; it's carefully constructed for maximum political divisiveness at the expense of making almost NO sense musically.

The hilarious irony is that Marsalis Standard Time, Volume 1 is, in some ways, an apex of what Jason is claiming to hate in this essay.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Big Wheel

[Quasimado]

Well, he's calling Jazz playing as a lot of people see it (I mean I get the feeling some of you guys seem to spurn any definition of the music you grew up on and loved). But again there are some of us for whom the basic elements (swing, musical invention) are still there, and he mentions Warne Marsh, which is right, because it shows people have been listening to the Real Deal regardless of politics, which is Great! Jazz will develop in it's own way, and for the people who love it, it's based on Louis, Prez, Bird, Bud, Warne and Changes (think American Raga!)... It's so beautiful, and very much alive ...

Q

[Larry Kart]

It's like the guy is paranoid about shit that he knows isn't real, but he feels some compulsion to create a belief in it inside himself anyway.

Either that, or he's just "harumph"-ing/trying to sound real serious about something because that's part of the family gig. I'll close now, my friends.

[JSngry]

I think that this is the look of a man about to snap.

RUN FOR COVER!!!!!

[Big Beat Steve]

Well, he's calling Jazz playing as a lot of people see it (I mean I get the feeling some of you guys seem to spurn any definition of the music you grew up on and loved). But again there are some of us for whom the basic elements (swing, musical invention) are still there, and he mentions Warne Marsh, which is right, because it shows people have been listening to the Real Deal regardless of politics, which is Great! Jazz will develop in it's own way, and for the people who love it, it's based on Louis, Prez, Bird, Bud, Warne and Changes (think American Raga!)... It's so beautiful, and very much alive ...

Q

Good points. and no less valid even if a Marsalis said the same (if he's got a "political" agenda behind what he says the that's an entirely different matter but it doesn't invalidate his statements taken by themselves). I don't know what's behind the 1990 cutoff date (to European jazz ears - with all the European brand of "Free" and/or "World Music" mixup that has been going on since the 70s - the date might be a bit earlier) but at any rate I don't buy into this "If it doesn't fit any other category, call it jazz, and if it doesn't swing one bit then so what" pseudo explanation/justification either.

[JSngry]

"If it doesn't fit any other category, call it jazz, and if it doesn't swing one bit then so what" pseudo explanation/justification

oh, so that's what the problem is!

[Big Beat Steve]

It may not actually be the Marsalises' main problem (though some of that Jason wrote points in that direction) but it is or may be the problem in some circles, including in the case of a lot of what had been labelled and marketeed as jazz over here since the late 70s or 80s and especially when everybody (or at least a lot) started jumping on that " world music bandwagon" (and I am not talking about Tony Scott or Albert Mangelsdorff here). The bottom line just is that why should music that does not fit any other stylistic description automatically be "jazz", of all musical genres? Small wonder that a lot of the audience did not follow and even diehard jazz fans (no matter what there "core" jazz preferences are) felt that things went too far. And this simply because the discernible references to decades of where this particular style of music (in all its variations and evolutions) came from not only weren't there but were rejected and ignored by the musicians in every respect possible.

If, say, Stockhausen or Kagel had insisted on their music being labelled "opera" or "classical chamber music" (of the day), do you think that all - or even most - lovers of that kind of classical music would have exclaimed "Oh so this is what this music is all about now and this is where we are heading in this music now" and would have accepted these claims at face value?

[JSngry]

That would probably upset me more if I saw it happening to any real extent.

As it is, I'd rather worry about if the music is actually good than what it's "called".

Really - I think it's a manufactured argument more than a real one. It's good to roil the blood, but then when you take it to the streets....what happens? Who am I supposed to get indignant at? Anybody doing anything outside of the prescribed parameters of the instigator? That's not exactly what I would call an attitude of discernment...

Hell, music evolves, and marketers market. In the end, it all shakes out one way or the other. Inbreeding and wanton, unchecked promiscuity both lead to bad places, for different reasons.

But I ain't against fucking, ya' know? Because that's what people do.

[papsrus]

I took the general thrust of the argument to be that technical wizardry had been elevated above all else in some improvised (hence jazz) music.

Putting aside whatever political agenda people may find in Marsalis' sentiments, as a listener I find myself somewhat sympathetic.

Maybe it all boils down to a matter of taste, but there can be a certain "sameness" to some modern improvised music. A certain emphasis on technical wizardry at the expense of ______ . (In Marsalis' case, at the expense of swing and blues).

If I can play fast and clean, that's the important thing. The musical ideas expressed become secondary.

Maybe he overstates the problem a bit, or even a lot, but it's not completely baseless, is it?

In closing .... ah, fuck it.

[JSngry]

It's not baseless, at least how you put it, but it's hardly a recent phenomenon either. Which is why the post/pre-1990 thing is so bizarre. Hell, people were leveling the same charge against Wynton et al a decade before (and still are, although, really, at this point, who cares any more?). Before that it was the excesses of fusion drawing the same critique. And so on. Same old story, really.

And also, really, when you get into the realm of "highly technical" music, the problem can just as easily be with the audience as the musicians. Not always, but sometimes. Hell, the whole "bebop is gobbledygook" thing seems little more than ill-informed reactionaryism today, but keep in mind that bebop was in every way a significantly more "technically involved" music than was that from which it sprung, so yeah, some people were just not ready to hear the music inside because they were lost just walking in the door.

Sometimes people catch up, sometimes they don't. Sometimes musicians evolve a more focused message as they refine their techniques, sometimes they don't. That's just the way shit goes. I say let shit be, let people do what it is they feel the need to do, and let it take care of itself without all the incessant "sheriff-ing" from the goddamned jazz police.

[Big Wheel]

I took the general thrust of the argument to be that technical wizardry had been elevated above all else in some improvised (hence jazz) music.

...

Maybe it all boils down to a matter of taste, but there can be a certain "sameness" to some modern improvised music. A certain emphasis on technical wizardry at the expense of ______ . (In Marsalis' case, at the expense of swing and blues).

If I can play fast and clean, that's the important thing. The musical ideas expressed become secondary.

But these attitudes have been out there for at least 65 years at this point. The moldy figs said this stuff about the beboppers, the traditionalists said it about the fusionistas, a lot of people said it about Coltrane, just about everybody said it about Maynard Ferguson, and on and on we go. Not to say there isn't some truth to it - in fact, the reason it's a pointless critique is that it's ALWAYS been true for players who are not at the very tippy top echelon of greatness. (Is a typical Ernie Henry record really all that different from a typical 1950s Art Pepper record, or is there a "sameness" there?) So why are we hearing this again now?

The most logical answer is that the author finds himself in the same place as all the others who made this attack in the past: he's uncomfortable with the direction the music is taking. But why? Doesn't his own music stand as a sufficient statement of what he thinks the music should be? That's why this is at its core a political piece and not a musical one. He doesn't only want to create, he wants to influence what others create. That's what this article is really about: shock that that influence is becoming impotent.

(edit: badly beaten to the punch by Jim)

Edited July 3, 2010 by Big Wheel

[papsrus]

Yes, I can see that there is a fairly transparent agenda in Marsalis' argument, and that it's hardly a new argument.

And yet ...

There are musicians today who are admired more for the mastery of their instruments than for the innovation/emotional depth of the musical ideas they're expressing. His brother may very well fall into this category, ironically enough.

It's the "this is serious music" thing. Well, fuck that. It sounds just like the last 10 albums they did.

But (big 'but') Marsalis' argument evaporates when considering any of a wide number of others -- Keefe Jackson, Josh Berman, Mike Reed, that whole gang, for instance. These guys seem to have "ideas" they want to develop and express. Their music is infused with that certain "something" -- a sense of adventure; they want to tell you something, show you some pearl, make you laugh ... something besides "holy crap, what a super fast solo!"

But again, it likely all just boils down to a matter of taste in the end. While I might find Potter, for example, to have brilliant command of his instrument but very little new to say, others I'm sure would disagree vehemently.

Edited July 3, 2010 by papsrus

[JSngry]

Chris Potter is developing into a more interesting player than he used to be, I think. He's still playing the basic same stuff, but he's playing it differently now, at least sometimes. The real ear-opener for me was this one:

Made a believer - or at least a non-skeptic - out of me as far as what this man has in him, somewhere, whenever. I'm still in no way a "fan", but...I'm listening now, sometimes, and sometimes getting satisfaction of some kind. What was once a voice in search of something to say might be starting to find exactly that. Or not. But easily dismissed? Not on this evidence.

Now, what I don't want to hear of anybody, fan or musician, is this lame "well, that's really technically impressive, but where's the soul?" bullshit, at least as the beginning and the end of the discussion. # 1 because "soul" is very subjective, & # 2 - if all you can say is that something is "technically impressive", what the fuck does that mean? I think it's too often used as a cop-out for "I can't hear what is going on, I do not have an adequate frame of reference against which to confront this music on its own terms, so I'm going to pretend to "respect" it."

Well, that's just lame. People need to be honest - music - of all sorts - can get really, really intricate in a lot of different ways, and it's no shame not to be able to feel right at home with all of it. Why not just cop to unfamiliarity, or even - GASP! - ignorance? No shame in that. And the whole "emotional connection" thing too, same thing - not everybody has the background to immediately feel warm and fuzzy with everything. Count me in that camp with a big bunch of the ECM/Euro things of the last 35 or so years. But that's my "problem", not theirs, dig? And it's not really a problem as much as it is a simple difference. It only gets to be a real problem if/when I start going around scolding these guys for not being what I know, or for condescendingly "complimenting" them for their "facility" but questioning the "emotional involvement" of their work, or some coded bullshit like that.

Not everything that is "technically advanced" has "content" to match. But I don't believe for one second that I'm prepared to render an instantaneous judgment on everything, either. And I know enough to know that "emotion" is not a fixed quality either. So I try to make a real effort to distinguish between what I dislike & what I don't understand, and I will try to give certain things time to shake out one way or the other (and I'm talking years here, not just a"a few listens"). I think it's the intellectually - and emotionally - honest thing to do, simply because although an unwillingness to do so may well be "normal", a lack of at least occasional challenge to "normal" in an environment where the "status quo" was originally forged in response to such types of challenges inevitably leads to an unjustified complacency, and that to an essentially self-imposed decline. No, "new" is not always progress, and no, "difficult" is not the same as "substance". But which is which (or which is going to be which) is seldom a determination made casual or reflexively, and for damn sure is not reflected in quick cliches and simplified generalizations.

Jason Marsalis' only real point is that there's shit going on now that he ain't comfortable with, for whatever reasons. Well, big fucking deal. Welcome to life, bitch. Get used to it. You might even come to appreciate it even when you don't like it.

Edited July 3, 2010 by JSngry