'Hanging Judges' around here

[fasstrack]

Well, be proud of me! A brooding ballad title and start of a new piece came out of the Phoenix of that last sentence: Don't Know why I Bother (I Just do). That's the 3rd tune to come out of taking chat rooms a little too seriously. This one is fittingly dark. So I can thank you all when done. All this faux drama led to a little release and a little beauty.

[.:.impossible]

Glad to hear it. It's easy to do (taking shit too seriously).

[Larry Kart]

Sorry, Fasstrack, but this thread is beginning to border on self-indulgence on your part. Closing time? If not, tell me why.

[fasstrack]

Maybe, but at least a composition came out of it. If someone hears something of THEMSELF in it and I've served as a g6od reporterself-indulence begets a real service. There's a happy ending of sorts. so not exactly closing time, but last call. I'll lock up and go home. Any last comments get em in now..

[JSngry]

We can get Happy Endings here now?

Traffic is about to go through the roof!

[fasstrack]

Larry: Let's hear the Vox popular on this. Or to paraphrase 2 jokes: Hey, if it dies, it dies. And our friend Leo Bloom-Wilder in the original, non-fat Producers: Let's hear the MAJORITY. The MAJOITY.....That was good enouGH for MR. IRVIING BERLIN. He knew when to close a show, including his own. But I wanna tell you, show business is my... CUE HOOK...

[AllenLowe]

I'm not a good persona to ask, as Larry knows - I think every thread should stay open until at least 3 people threaten a lawsuit.

[JSngry]

I'm still looking for the Happy Endings thread,,,is this one of those things that is only available to paid members?

[Leeway]

I'm still looking for the Happy Endings thread,,,is this one of those things that is only available to paid members?

Only available to those in the PRIME, DE LUXE or VIP membership categories.

[JSngry]

There's always a catch.

[David Ayers]

Cecil Taylor wasn't nice about Ornette. Roscoe Mitchell criticized Brotzmann. So what? Musicians want adulation. Go figure. I agree with Allen's first post. As I said in another thread, jazz is musician-defined. To everyone else it is just background. Musicians are very pleased with themselves. As are we all - but that puts no obligation on anyone else.

[JSngry]

You're not providing the Happy Endings, then?

I'm still looking for the Happy Endings.

Or have the authorities shut that down already?

Not really a crime as long as no money is changing hands (so to speak), is it?

[Larry Kart]

Cecil Taylor wasn't nice about Ornette. Roscoe Mitchell criticized Brotzmann. So what? Musicians want adulation. Go figure. I agree with Allen's first post. As I said in another thread, jazz is musician-defined. To everyone else it is just background. Musicians are very pleased with themselves. As are we all - but that puts no obligation on anyone else.

David -- Lord knows I don't wish to prolong a thread that I was thinking about closing down. But while I understand what you mean by "jazz is musician-defined" (as is any art defined by what its practitioners chose to/manage to do), I don't understand what you mean by "To everyone else it is just background." Everyone else doesn't really care about it?/has no significant or meaningful relationship with it? What?

And why do you think that we all are very pleased with ourselves?

[JSngry]

And why do you think that we all are very pleased with ourselves?

Because you've found the Happy Ending thread? Don't blame ya'!

Me, I'm still looking, and am starting to get a little miffed I can't find it, although it's obviously here somewhere.

[paul secor]

I'd be HAPPY if this thread would END.

[David Ayers]

When I say jazz is musician-led I mean that it is not really led by composers or other ideators. This isn't true of 30s jazz (which is the one period of fame of jazz and where composers and bandleaders were keen to set the idea of the music above the desire of individual musicians to tootle). Musicans tend to be conservative and technique led. They tend to reproduce the same ideas and not change paradigm. So they are refined players but tend to produce an intricate background music, which most people hear as such. So jazz is supported in the main by musicians, toe-tapping gents, and collectors. That is all fair and fine but it's not really scalable and we should understand why jazz does not command massive popular support.

[jazzbo]

I don't mind if the thread ends. It's been an interesting read. I think I'm closer in viewpoint to Joel's.

[Larry Kart]

When I say jazz is musician-led I mean that it is not really led by composers or other ideators. This isn't true of 30s jazz (which is the one period of fame of jazz and where composers and bandleaders were keen to set the idea of the music above the desire of individual musicians to tootle). Musicans tend to be conservative and technique led. They tend to reproduce the same ideas and not change paradigm. So they are refined players but tend to produce an intricate background music, which most people hear as such. So jazz is supported in the main by musicians, toe-tapping gents, and collectors. That is all fair and fine but it's not really scalable and we should understand why jazz does not command massive popular support.

Glad I asked because otherwise I never would have guessed. A few more questions. I know what composers are, but who might these "other ideators" be? Also, Louis Armstrong, Lester Young, Art Tatum, Charlie Parker, Bud Powell (among many others) never worked that much within frameworks that were significantly determined by composers or bandleaders who "were keen to set the idea of the music above the desire of individual musicians to tootle." Were Armstrong, Young, Tatum, Parker, Powell et al. a passle of "toe-tapping gents" who were just "tootling" ?

Finally, your final sentence: "That is all fair and fine but it's not really scalable and we should understand why jazz does not command massive popular support."

What does "scalable" mean there? Measurable against something else, a standard of some sort? If so, what would that be? Or "scalable" as in, say, a barrier that could be climbed? And what could jazz's "scalability" (if there is such a word) have to do with whether or not the music commands "massive popular support"? What arts that command such support do so because they are "scaleable"?

[fasstrack]

I'd be HAPPY if this thread would END.

Maybe since I started it I should 2nd that (e)motion. Maybe it'll go quietly in the night, as I too will for a while. I meant well with this, but feel more of a need to contribute as a musician and citizen than faux Web preacher. A wage-earner must precede all anyway. Philosophy is better on a full stomach. If I got intense it's only b\c I care. Will wish all well and godspeed in life and will catch up domn the line...

[David Ayers]

When I say jazz is musician-led I mean that it is not really led by composers or other ideators. This isn't true of 30s jazz (which is the one period of fame of jazz and where composers and bandleaders were keen to set the idea of the music above the desire of individual musicians to tootle). Musicans tend to be conservative and technique led. They tend to reproduce the same ideas and not change paradigm. So they are refined players but tend to produce an intricate background music, which most people hear as such. So jazz is supported in the main by musicians, toe-tapping gents, and collectors. That is all fair and fine but it's not really scalable and we should understand why jazz does not command massive popular support.

Glad I asked because otherwise I never would have guessed. A few more questions. I know what composers are, but who might these "other ideators" be? Also, Louis Armstrong, Lester Young, Art Tatum, Charlie Parker, Bud Powell (among many others) never worked that much within frameworks that were significantly determined by composers or bandleaders who "were keen to set the idea of the music above the desire of individual musicians to tootle." Were Armstrong, Young, Tatum, Parker, Powell et al. a passle of "toe-tapping gents" who were just "tootling" ?

Finally, your final sentence: "That is all fair and fine but it's not really scalable and we should understand why jazz does not command massive popular support."

What does "scalable" mean there? Measurable against something else, a standard of some sort? If so, what would that be? Or "scalable" as in, say, a barrier that could be climbed? And what could jazz's "scalability" (if there is such a word) have to do with whether or not the music commands "massive popular support"? What arts that command such support do so because they are "scaleable"?

The question is not about the handful of people who came up with anything new (as you point out, a loong time ago) but with the concept that no end of imitation should be 'supported'. Ideators would be people who reconfigure basic ideas - Cage, Boulez, Eno - these people are very unconservative. In the end I am simply positing a different answer to the question 'why is jazz not more popular and better supported' which is that there are good reasons that people aren't interested. If you play music and ever got labeled a 'muso' you'll know what that means. Jazz is in the paradoxical position of being a stabilised, commercialised music with a narrow commercial base. Designed to go on while people are doing something else.

[AllenLowe]

"Designed to go on while people are doing something else. " Personally, and I am not joking, I have found ways to have my own music go on even as I do something else. Worst of both possible worlds? The wave of the jazz future?

[Jim Alfredson]

What exactly is the point of all this? That we should be nice to each other and other people within the sphere of jazz, be they musicians, collectors, critics, etc no matter what? How boring would that be? The whole point of a discussion forum is to voice one's opinion about the topic at hand, in this case jazz. The value those opinions are is directly related to how much integrity is behind them. I don't need people telling me everything is peachy keen if it's not because of some perceived bruise to the collective ego.

Believe me, I do plenty of self-editing when discussing subjective subject matter like music, but sometimes I just gotta call it when I see it. Case in point, the aforementioned Clapton / Marsalis debacle. That shit sucks, plain and simple. It's not the end of the world by any means nor does it really matter in the grand scheme of things. It just sucks. The insincerity lurking behind it is grossly palpable and is insulting, hence the negative reaction. If someone likes it, hey more power to them but it still sucks to me.

Don't confuse opinions with personal or professional attacks. That's grade school.

[JohnJ]

What exactly is the point of all this? That we should be nice to each other and other people within the sphere of jazz, be they musicians, collectors, critics, etc no matter what? How boring would that be? The whole point of a discussion forum is to voice one's opinion about the topic at hand, in this case jazz. The value those opinions are is directly related to how much integrity is behind them. I don't need people telling me everything is peachy keen if it's not because of some perceived bruise to the collective ego.

Believe me, I do plenty of self-editing when discussing subjective subject matter like music, but sometimes I just gotta call it when I see it. Case in point, the aforementioned Clapton / Marsalis debacle. That shit sucks, plain and simple. It's not the end of the world by any means nor does it really matter in the grand scheme of things. It just sucks. The insincerity lurking behind it is grossly palpable and is insulting, hence the negative reaction. If someone likes it, hey more power to them but it still sucks to me.

Don't confuse opinions with personal or professional attacks. That's grade school.

Jim, well said. My thoughts exactly.

I actually enjoy the more contentious threads. As you say, it can all be a bit boring without them.

[Larry Kart]

What exactly is the point of all this? That we should be nice to each other and other people within the sphere of jazz, be they musicians, collectors, critics, etc no matter what? How boring would that be? The whole point of a discussion forum is to voice one's opinion about the topic at hand, in this case jazz. The value those opinions are is directly related to how much integrity is behind them. I don't need people telling me everything is peachy keen if it's not because of some perceived bruise to the collective ego.

Believe me, I do plenty of self-editing when discussing subjective subject matter like music, but sometimes I just gotta call it when I see it. Case in point, the aforementioned Clapton / Marsalis debacle. That shit sucks, plain and simple. It's not the end of the world by any means nor does it really matter in the grand scheme of things. It just sucks. The insincerity lurking behind it is grossly palpable and is insulting, hence the negative reaction. If someone likes it, hey more power to them but it still sucks to me.

Don't confuse opinions with personal or professional attacks. That's grade school.

Wish I'd have said that.

[jazzbo]

Yes, but we don't have to be so nasty to each other. That's my main "turn off" in all this. I do think that the venom towards some artists is a bit much, but when it's coupled with real nastiness from posters towards other posters who may not share an opinion. . . it's even worse. And that happens here, often enough.