fasstrack Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 (edited) Jazz Populism? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Posted first to Jazzcorner's Speakeasy) I sent this to a noted newspaperman I'm friendly with. It's the first time I've been moved to write anything here since reporting on John Hicks' funeral, the content of which also touched on music as a social force.To be brutally honest I really wanted Ethan Iverson to maybe put it on DTM, since I first heard about Lee's interview book there and I like it generally. Couldn't get a contact email for him to save my life. Maybe someone could forward it? I'm just putting this out and will step aside. I already gave my opinions and the issues raised are, I think, way bigger than me or any one person---which is the point. If anyone wants to contact me privately go ahead. I only hope this gets people to thinking. I hope this doesn't devolve into a discussion about Lee, his thoughts, or his playing, both of which I highly respect. I hope he sees this and accepts the spirit it was written in. Finally, reference to Paul Bley's comment is just that: a reference to his comment. In fairness the whole thing should be quoted and in context, but I don't have the book anymore. And I definitely hope Randy Weston gets to see this. He's a great man. I'll wager the following has been already been broached by thinking jazzers, scribes, and wags. I recently read a book of interviews about approaches to improvising with Lee Konitz, whose contributions as player and thinker have been---and should be---duly noted. I agreed with some of Lee's conclusions about playing and the varied approaches of its practitioners and disagreed with others, and fair enough. But the book's tone and tenor really rubbed me wrong because, acknowledging it was a book of reflections on improvising, it was to me inbred and even even elitist in that in some 300 plus pages the only time the listener is deigned to be mentioned is in a postscript interview with Paul Bley, who says 'fuck the listener'. Lee himself, for all his thoughtfulness and analytical postmortems about his own improvising and that of his peers and betters never included even one observation on the idea that improvising might be other than a private conversation between player and bandmates. The idea that energy bounces back and forth between player and listener and that the result can, for better or worse, effect a performance's outcome is never broached. The notion that all-important listening might extend to doing so beyond his own thoughts or those of the band seem unimportant in his thought-world. Way to go, gentlemen. IMO arrogant (In Bley's case) and self-absorbed postures like this kick the already slim chances of the music we love regaining any portion of its onetime popularity in the ass--and HARD. Thankfully by contrast I also recently attended a lecture by Randy Weston in conjunction with his own autobiography. Without delving into too much detail here about his book I'll just summarize that Randy's viewpoint on playing and its effects seems opposite to Lee's. He is inclusive and a communicator while not sacrificing quality or his own playing journey where Lee, at least in the book, seems solitary and perhaps tunnel-visioned. Randy's more selfless and IMO evolved view of the purpose of music and the path he's taken through life really were eye-opening and inspiring. Hearing and reading Randy, particularly after Konitz, straightened my spiritual spine and validated my own beliefs. Also in my own work I had a nice recent experience taking one of my songs to collaborate with R&B veteran Jimmy Norman to give something back to the Jazz Foundation, of whom we were both clients. A CD and a nice DVD about the project came about, which had other clients sing lead and in the gospel choir. As a guy who's composed music his whole life, have I written pieces musically deeper, less 'quotidian'? As the late Tommy Turrentine would say, 'indubitably', yet I'm prouder of this thing that brought folks together, as you can doubtless tell. I am a jazz musician, and damn proud to be. Ain't about to water down what I play or believe in or start singing We Are The friggin' World to get over anytime soon. I don't know that I want to cease improvising and composing jazz on the level I want for myself and whoever's listening to begin a career as inspirational songwriter. Me and jazz are kind of stuck with each other. So I appeal to you, musicians, fans, gentle readers: What are your thoughts? What, sans 'water', can folks like us do to make this music inclusive, reflective of life's larger picture, and---yes---beloved again? Edited April 2, 2011 by fasstrack Quote
GA Russell Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 Well, very little of the new jazz I've heard for the past ten years has had much melody. There's been a lot of sound colors, but not much Jon Hendricks could write lyrics for. It has occurred to me that this new jazz, while not free, is different from that of previous eras, and should have its own name. I think of it as "post-mainstream", and I'm sure that people close to the scene could come up with a better name than that. We have had eras of dixieland, swing, bop, cool, mainstream and free, and now we are in a different era that needs its own name. But in answer to your question, I would say simply "more melody". Quote
fasstrack Posted April 2, 2011 Author Report Posted April 2, 2011 Well, very little of the new jazz I've heard for the past ten years has had much melody. There's been a lot of sound colors, but not much Jon Hendricks could write lyrics for. It has occurred to me that this new jazz, while not free, is different from that of previous eras, and should have its own name. I think of it as "post-mainstream", and I'm sure that people close to the scene could come up with a better name than that. We have had eras of dixieland, swing, bop, cool, mainstream and free, and now we are in a different era that needs its own name. But in answer to your question, I would say simply "more melody". We're on the same page there, buddy, and thanks for that. Melody is what I live for. Quote
Jim Alfredson Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 The term "Jazz" refers to a wide swath of music. There's room for both musician-centered work and "taking it to the people" side by side. I don't see why it has to be either/or. I get as much joy listening to the latest Nessa (re)release of something by Wadada Leo Smith, for example, as I do from Dr. Lonnie Smith (who plays extremely melodically). The simple fact is, people respond more to vocal music than instrumental music. You can be up on stage playing the most cliche, worn-out, sure-to-be-audience-pleasing licks known to mankind but as soon as somebody starts singing, people will instantly pay more attention. Quote
JSngry Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 If you want people to listen, play what people will listen to. Quote
Bright Moments Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 If you want people to listen, play what people will listen to. Quote
jeffcrom Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 First of all, glad to see you here, Joel. If you've been around lately, I've missed it - I've been wondering how you were doing. I should just leave it at that, since Jim's four sentences summarize part of what I wanted to say. But I'll also add that I love what Konitz has to say in that book. He's kind of a crusty old fuck, but I love his approach to music. I'm very suspicious of any attempt to define what jazz should be. Except that each jazz musician should create the music he/she has to. When I play more "traditional" jazz with other people's bands, I enjoy it. I love playing for dancers, and in situations where the band and the audience become one focused, sweaty entity. I love playing pretty New Orleans melodies on the clarinet and honking like Lester Young on Rhythm changes. But with my own band, I write and play intense, abstract, freebop or beyond music; that's the music that most expresses what's inside me. The audiences are always small (but usually attentive and appreciative), and yes, there's probably more communication going on among the band than between the band and the audience. But that's okay. It's the music I have to play. There's a Cecil Taylor quote that I thought was ridiculous when I first read it many years ago, but it makes perfect sense to me now: "The artist's first responsibility is to communicate with himself." There will always be an audience for for jazz; probably an audience for every type of jazz. But as far as jazz being "popular" to the extent it was in its few heydays - that ain't gonna happen. Play for the people who want to hear you, and play for yourself. Quote
JSngry Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 (edited) Ya' know, this whole "how do we get more people to listen to jazz" shit is really getting old and tired. Take that back - it's not getting to be old and tired, it is old and tired. Like the music itself, if you have to ask... Really, it's 2011, not 1961. The music as it has existed is now and will forevermore be a fringe music. Find where the fringe that fits your particular genre lives and give them what they want. Whatever "new" is happening in the music has the blessing/curse of being made in a time when the apetite for pushing the boundaries/breaking new ground/whatever is pretty much popularly limited to things technological. So again, find where your personal fringe is and give them what they want. If you're one of the lucky ones who can naturally interact with the technology (musical & otherwise) to make music that moves everything ahead, hey, this is your time, like it used to be "jazz"'s. Carpe fucking diem, and please make sure I get a copy of your stuff, please. Other than that, if the question is "I want to Play X but the public wants Z, how can I make them want X?", then that's really nothing more than a really...sweet way of saying "fuck the audience". There's a Cecil Taylor quote that I thought was ridiculous when I first read it many years ago, but it makes perfect sense to me now: "The artist's first responsibility is to communicate with himself.". There was another one where, when the subject of about 75% of the audience getting up to leave early on inthe show was raised, he replied, "Fuck them - I play for the 25% who stayed." Seems like a fair enough compromise to me. If you want people to listen, play what people will listen to. Hey. Edited April 2, 2011 by JSngry Quote
Larry Kart Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 Certainly not the whole story, but another perspective (an excerpt from my book that I've posted before): "...At one time, so the argument goes, jazz musicians were content to think of themselves as entertainers, not self-conscious artists. If the practitioner of modern jazz wants to please himself and his peers first and the audience second, if at all, he must endure the consequences of this unrealistic, willful act. "The problem with that argument, though, as British saxophonist Bruce Turner says in his whimsically titled autobiography Hot Air, Cool Music, “is that scarcely any jazz musicians are able to recognize this picture of themselves. There are some jazzmen who are great entertainers. Louis Armstrong, Fats Waller, and Lionel Hampton come immediately to mind. But they are the exception, not the rule. For the most part those of us who play jazz for a living do not know any way of entertaining an audience other than by making the best music we are capable of....'" Quote
JSngry Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 (edited) There are some jazzmen who are great entertainers. Louis Armstrong, Fats Waller, and Lionel Hampton come immediately to mind. But they are the exception, not the rule. For the most part those of us who play jazz for a living do not know any way of entertaining an audience other than by making the best music we are capable of....'" That's why very few musicians (jazz or otherwise) should try to be leaders on an ongoing, financially sustainable public basis. Not only is too much of today's "jazz" being made by ensembles of players who all sound like competent, or even better, sidemen, do any of thees guys/gals have any kind of a distinguishable trait other than being a "fine jazz musician"? Any kind of a movement has to have movers, and that means leaders, not just good-or-better soldiers. And being a leader means being somebody that others can/will follow, which means having something distinctive so people can distinguish you from every other face in the crowd. Find the people that will follow you and give them what it is that they follow you for. If you ain't got that "thing", find a compatible leader(s) who does and work that horse until it drops. If that don't work, hey, like Brian said, "I Guess I Just Wasn't Made For These Times". It happens. Edited April 2, 2011 by JSngry Quote
paul secor Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 As a listener, I assume that all musicians are interested in connecting with an audience. I keep listening to those who connect with me. That may seem simplistic but I'm an uncomplicated guy. Quote
fasstrack Posted April 4, 2011 Author Report Posted April 4, 2011 Thought this would make a bigger bang. I guess it's more important to me, like a lot of things in life are important mostly to ourselves. Or maybe, as our friend Jim says, it's talked out. I'm cool with it in any case, so I'll thank the people who did respond for their thoughtfulness and accept the vox popular concensus. Maybe I should've been a politician. Oh, wait. I'm an honest man. Never mind. And the money I could be rollin' in, Velma I hate when that happens.... Movin' on... Quote
Chuck Nessa Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 I see you got no responses on Jazzcorner. That might be an answer. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 To borrow from the cliche, you can make the best buggy whip in the world, but you can't make it relevant. Quote
Larry Kart Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 I'm reminded of a passage from a recent really good book about Bach, Martin Geck's "Johann Sebastian Bach: Life and Art," in which in 1730 Bach fires off a blunt, angry memorandum of protest ("Short but Most Necessary Draft for a Well-Appointed Church Music") to his bosses in Leipzig, claiming that he doesn't have sufficient resources of personnel (i.e. number and quality of performers) to do what he feel he needs to do musically, and that his bosses' demand that he spend more time teaching novices are unfair and burdensome. Geck writes: "...Bach's arrival in Leipzig marks a shift in the view of musical art that has been coming for some time but is brought to a head by his understanding of the art, according to which a composer no longer builds on prearranged understandings but operates within the complicated dialectical relation between socially agreed-upon standards and artistic autonomy. "A pragmatist in the post of St. Thomas cantor [bach's position] would reason as follows: I have the school's pupils, the council musicians, and a few students at my disposal; I will adapt my music to these resources. Bach's reasoning goes this way: I have the school's pupils, the council musicians, and a few students at my disposal, and the St. Matthew Passion in my head; therefore I need better conditions.... "Senior Mayor Steger must have shaken his head as he read Bach's memorandum, wondering whether the real issue was a well-appointed church music or one artist's ambition. Bach actually wants both; he is a church musician and an artist through and through; he loves the old music and is eager for the new. We would not understand his argument if we did not have his works; they create in the realm of the ideal the synthesis that he does not achieve in his everyday circumstances." [My emphasis] Quote
AllenLowe Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 (edited) well, as Walter Benjamin maintained, there is no such thing as an audience - given that the meaning of the term is so complicated as to really be meaningless - who is the audience? It's different for everyone, for every genre and every niche - there is no single and identifiable entity. still, some (if not most) of us crave SOME audience, if only to be liberated from that which we hate (various day-job anchors) into a situation of freedom to do what we love to do. But personally, though I believe the music I perform is quite accessible, it would not exist without those who took many more chances than I take, who pushed things along in ways which were, given the times and the "audiences," much riskier - and that fringe which gets so critcized - from Albert Ayler to Cecil Taylor - freed all of us, from beboppers to new music-ites, to do what we want to do without being slave to certain formal and generic assumptions. So we owe them an enormous debt. Edited April 4, 2011 by AllenLowe Quote
JSngry Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 I'm reminded of a passage from a recent really good book about Bach, Martin Geck's "Johann Sebastian Bach: Life and Art," in which in 1730 Bach fires off a blunt, angry memorandum of protest ("Short but Most Necessary Draft for a Well-Appointed Church Music") to his bosses in Leipzig, claiming that he doesn't have sufficient resources of personnel (i.e. number and quality of performers) to do what he feel he needs to do musically, and that his bosses' demand that he spend more time teaching novices are unfair and burdensome. Geck writes: "...Bach's arrival in Leipzig marks a shift in the view of musical art that has been coming for some time but is brought to a head by his understanding of the art, according to which a composer no longer builds on prearranged understandings but operates within the complicated dialectical relation between socially agreed-upon standards and artistic autonomy. "A pragmatist in the post of St. Thomas cantor [bach's position] would reason as follows: I have the school's pupils, the council musicians, and a few students at my disposal; I will adapt my music to these resources. Bach's reasoning goes this way: I have the school's pupils, the council musicians, and a few students at my disposal, and the St. Matthew Passion in my head; therefore I need better conditions.... "Senior Mayor Steger must have shaken his head as he read Bach's memorandum, wondering whether the real issue was a well-appointed church music or one artist's ambition. Bach actually wants both; he is a church musician and an artist through and through; he loves the old music and is eager for the new. We would not understand his argument if we did not have his works; they create in the realm of the ideal the synthesis that he does not achieve in his everyday circumstances." [My emphasis] Bach was sharp enough a businessman & leader to realize that the first audience he had to get over with was his bosses in Leipzig. The more things change... Quote
Hot Ptah Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 I think that there is something to what the initial poster wrote about. I have been going back and listening to some of the jazz which was newly released when I first became enthusiastic about jazz, in the 1970s. I was struck by how accessible some of the music is, even though it is uncompromising. The McCoy Tyner Milestones, and albums by Carla Bley, Arthur Blythe, Charles Mingus, Rahsaan Roland Kirk, Dexter Gordon, Johnny Griffin, Stan Getz, Thad Jones/Mel Lewis, Mary Lou Williams, and many others, were all full of substance musically, but also had an immediate appeal to me, the young listener who did not know what he was doing as he floundered around in jazz. I also explored Cecil Taylor, Roscoe Mitchell, Air and other artists who did not have many catchy, finger popping tunes. Maybe I don't know what is out there now, but there seems to be an attitude among many artists releasing new jazz albums that complicated time signatures and harmonies are the reason to record. Since they can play a piece in 13/4 time with difficult harmonies, they do. Their albums are interesting on some level, but I don't play them repeatedly. How to come across with the direct emotional appeal of Dexter Gordon or Stan Getz while playing contemporary harmony and difficult time signatures--that is something which many jazz musicians of today have not figured out how to do, in my opinion. Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 When jazz had a wider, general popular appeal its language had much of its syntax in common with other popular musics. Even when I first got interested (mid-70s) it no longer shared that syntax - jazz sounded strange, old-fashioned. The only connection was through the bands who attached rock rhythms. I had to suspend my disbelief and consciously 'learn' to like jazz (as you have to learn to like alcohol or stilton). I'd imagine the syntax is even further adrift from popular music now. No amount of attempting to lighten it up for popular consumption is ever going to make it sound 'now' in the popular sense of the word (beyond brief nostalgia fads, often tied in with films). Like other non-popular musics its appeal will be to those who tire of what is flooding the mainstream and who want something different. And they too will have to learn to like it (either by being lucky enough to hear enough played around them by parents, friends or by sheer faith that there is something there worth striving for [like persevering with Shakespeare when you could be watching a Hollywood blockbuster)). Having said that, I've little patience with musicians who produce enigmatic music but don't even try to explain what they are doing ('man, its in the music, if you can't hear it...'). Make your music as obtuse as you like, much of the jazz audience relishes a challenge. But at least come part way to the audience who have come to hear you rather than go to the much easier fare on offer elsewhere and give a bit of an explanation as to what you are doing. Quote
AllenLowe Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 I disagree - nobody required Beckett to explain Beckett, or Joyce to explain Joyce. Cecil Taylor has no such obligation, On the other hand, there are tons of interviews with Braxton, et al. You just have to look for it, Quote
JSngry Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 I also explored Cecil Taylor, Roscoe Mitchell, Air and other artists who did not have many catchy, finger popping tunes. And I'm guessing that the appeal these artists had to you was at least in part based on, for lack of better terms, the "energy" or the "vibe" that these musics had, the intuitive sense that what was being said was using a language/methodology/whatever that was inspired by the vibe and the energy of what was going on in the rest of your world. When Quartet Out was an ongoing entity, we ran into that all the time - younger people who didn't know Jazz from Pez would really get into the music because of the energy. Older, more mainstream "jazz audiences" would be repelled by that exact energy. Hell, we didn't care who dug it or if they "understood" it, we were just happy that people were feeling it. If you want to play for an audience instead of to it, htat's really all you can hope for. Everything else, if/when it's there, is icing on the cake. Deliciously sweet icing, to be sure, but icing nevertheless. Quote
JSngry Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 Having said that, I've little patience with musicians who produce enigmatic music but don't even try to explain what they are doing ('man, its in the music, if you can't hear it...'). Make your music as obtuse as you like, much of the jazz audience relishes a challenge. But at least come part way to the audience who have come to hear you rather than go to the much easier fare on offer elsewhere and give a bit of an explanation as to what you are doing. Be careful what you ask for...you're liable to end up with each tune being prefaced by a lecture about modes and time signatures and such...you don't want too much of that, trust me! OTOH, if there is a "programmatic" slant to the music, if it was inspired by something or is dedicated to somebody, if there's a story behind the music, it's always nice to hear that, but only from a decent storyteller. You don't have to be a natural raconteur like Cannonball or Duke, just be able to enjoy telling a good story, that's all. Or at least be able to project a believable persona. Be a grumpy old prick if that's what works, but make it good, and make it work. And OTOOH, some people got a strong enough mojo that they don't have to say anything or do anything other than just show up and start playing. But there are not nearly as many of those as there are those who think they are one of those... Quote
Tom Storer Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 In my opinion, musicians are more arrogant and manipulative when they try to second-guess their audience to achieve a predictable response than when they trust their audience to be open to honest art, be it a matter of passionate craftsmanship or leaps into the unknown. The very best thing Lee Konitz or Paul Bley, or any jazz musician, can do for listeners is to just play, following their own compass. It won't work for everyone. What does? Personally, I love melody and I love all sorts of music where melody doesn't figure much. When Lee Konitz plays, I'm in delight. What I don't want is to have the impression that someone is taking me by the hand and spoonfeeding me "melody" or "swing" or "blues" or whatever because they think it will make me smile and be happy for them. Konitz doesn't choose his notes based on whether I will like them or not: he has enough respect for his listeners to leave it up to me to decide. He's doing it not for him, and certainly not for me, but for the thing itself. Quote
Larry Kart Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 Bach was sharp enough a businessman & leader to realize that the first audience he had to get over with was his bosses in Leipzig. The more things change... In fact, Bach already had been charged with dereliction of duty by the city council: "Not only was the Cantor [bach] doing nothing; he was not even willing to explain himself; he was not giving singing lessons, and there were other complaints as well; changes would be necessary, for matters would come to a head sooner or later, and he would have to accept other arrangements" -- e.g. a reduction in salary and a decision to appoint someone to serve as Bach's substitute at Bach's expense. What Bach was doing in the detailed ten-page memorandum was accusing "the city council in turn with inadequate attention to his needs." Geck continues: "Bach can hardly have expected that his memorandum would result in meaningful changes; there is no indication that it was even discussed in the council. It seems more likely that he intended the memorandum to serve as an unadorned record of his difficult working conditions." Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.