-
A bit of a philosophical/theoretical speculation here...
yesterday I went to local jazz club to listen to Peter Bernstein quartet with great players (Sullivan Fortner, Joe Farnsworth, and sorry I cannot remember who was on bass... but he was brilliant).
It was a great experience for me personally - I never saw Peter life and considering where I am coming from just 2 years ago I thought I would never see really. And now I am sitting next to him in a bar in a small Flemish village... more of a cultural/cross-history experience even than musical... you know as if you loke Van Gogh and suddenly meet a person who knew him and in the most unpredictable context. But it is my personal thing...
I had also other ideas after that. I have not been in jazz club for a long time already.
They played a kind of a standard jazz set: a few standards, a few originals. They traded changes, each tune had an extensive drum solo, they closed almost every tune with a long slow typical 'cadenza' - when everyone play a lot of notes on final chords etc.
Overall the language was what I call 'modern traditional jazz', and as I said all of them were great, but purely in ,musical sense in this particular set I loved Sullivan the best.
But overall it was a common jazz set that you could (in theory) attend any day in any jazz club (considering the level of players of course, you cannot meet them any day).
And I thought that I had a feeling that the format does not really fit the contents. It was a club but still people sit in the audience like in a concert hall and listen.
At the same time the contents in my opinion fits more 'old school' clubs where people can come in and out, drink and eat, chat, re-act more, be distracted and then highly involved. this is allowed by the music itself, it has a lot of light entertainment features that od not really require that much focus as requires a symphony of Mahler.
some things come out brilliantly, some are done just casually, some are pure 'circus-style' fun (like drum solos in my opinion), and some are deep musical ideas etc.
I had a feeling that current performance practice does not really fit that style, I think it started long a go in 60s probably when jazz players felt that they were artists too and they wanted an audience like in classical.
And in cases for example of Frisell or Pat Metheny I understand very well (no matter if I like them or not), just because their programs and styles are beyond the trad jazz and have much more of a personal conceptual integrity, you really attend a special event. A concert.
And in this case (however great the players are) you feel a bit like you are attending something very special but as a result it is just another jazz set that you could jazz hear passing by a club in 50s... again it is not about musicality of the player, it is about format, metaphorically... the format puts it a bit in the 'museum frame' though it should be just hanging in a hall, in the corridor, in the street...
PS
And I also felt tired of drums, I really feel it is too loud and too much, I have a feeling like drums create rhythmic noise that obscures music, I had real relief in short episodes when I hear just guitar, piano and bass - it was really musical and interesting.
I think drums push also players a bit towards dancy entertainment style, flashy licks and all...
I also really love Peter's playing more when e plays in duo with other guitarist, pianist, or bass... much more intimacy and concentration there.
Let me stress it is not about these brilliant musicians, I appreciated the show and love them all.
Just some general thoughts that came to me afterwards.
-
09-24-2024 04:00 AM
-
Different venues definitely have different vibes and ambiences.
I see your point, but I for one am glad people don't talk during jazz gigs, and I don't think that it's too reverent to expect people not to talk, irrespective of where on the scale of purportedly serious to light some might regard the music to fall.
-
I think these things are beyond our control or will actually... it is a cultural process that goes on its own and we are where we are. We cannot force people to talk... it would be stupid.
Originally Posted by James W
Nut in my opinion such things demonstrate very clearly the crisis of the genre. When the genre originates in certain environment and then shifts to the other one then it either dies or finds another life (but usually it takes very long and then the genre must have more substance that is not connected with social background it originated from).
Baroque theatre for example (Shakespeare, Moliere etc.) came from very practical environment. The way it was written was much connected with how theatrical business was arranged, how the actors performed, what was the staging, what was the audience demand. That explains a lot in Shakespeare's plays: some lines were put in or excluded last moment, some things composed awkwardly etc.
In France it was a royal theatre and tradition connected with dance and music and Moliere and Lully and the King himself could participate in the acting.
Then in XIX century these plays became a heritage, classics... there were read and studied at home from the book, theatrical tradition changed a lot by the middle of the 20th century Moliere and Shakespeare were staged in absolutely different manner than it was originally but also it was taken for granted as if they were always like this. They became a part of a new tradition already.
That happened also to other classic artistic achievements like Dante or Greek and Roman works.. very often they become a part of tradition of another culture in translation that is so much different from original but it is what it is.
Now the movement of authenticity came and they began to discover original setups but in reality it is also a 'new wave' (very post-modernistic in its nature)... a new shift in culture.
What I am trying to say that these things happen very naturally... but to survive through these changes a piece of art should really have some essential features that can stay valuable in a new environment.
Like heavy Hamlet of the academic theatres or sentimental and romantic Romeo and Juliette in movies or Moliere in 20th century Comedie Francaise with no original music or ballet. They were all still valid because they had something more than thigs that were just stipulated by the circumstance then and there.
Same thing we can say about baroque opera - when now they stage some opera and listen to it an academic format - but in many cases it is poorly made 'one-day' music that was quickly set up to fill in the gap, to meet very practical requirements, and the audience ignored a lot of it, flirting with girls, playing cards, eating... just focusing on a few arias.
(Of course there were exceptional masterpieces that survive any format but the genre itself... not sure I want to listen to all 50-60 (or more?) operas of Hasse in an academic opera theatre these days.)
So the question is rather does standard traditional entertainment jazz style have it to survive a 'serious' format?
Ellington's Sacred Concerts had it for example but he also had it much under personal control and obviously clearly felt the change of format.
Or Coltrane's one-hour meditations... they also require different format.
But those are real individuals, genius of exceptional level... can we say the same about the genre in general?
-
Hmm. I think you could say about it generally about the genre, because I think from my experiences of attending jazz gigs, many of which at my nearest conservatoire (Birmingham) that the standard in general is pretty high, although I can't obviously compare it with say 30, 40 or 50 years ago. But then, it's problematic about making generalisations about genres, particularly one like jazz whose origins were as pop music. Come to think of it, I have been to places where there have been jazz musicians providing background music, and that's ok I guess. I'm not one to comment on traditional jazz style entertainment because I would regard all the jazz I listen to, going back to Louis Armstrong's Hot Fives & Sevens, as being better than mere entertainment, more like art, just like the Beatles - these people transcend their ostensible status as entertainers. So, some music can cope with being presented both as art and entertainment, some only as one of these things (although it's always better IMO if it is treated more seriously). I am reminded of one time going to a pub after the funeral of an acquaintance who played saxophone - at the pub there was a jukebox which the owners specially must have set up to have a selection of jazz albums in memory of the dead saxophonist. I saw that Bitches Brew was available, and put it on - eventually though, someone went and turned that right down, before eventually turning it off... I wasn't surprised to be honest... Originally Posted by Jonah
-
The bassist in Pete's current quartet is Doug Weiss.
-
I do not agree with this statement at all. Classical is just like all the other genres, it all sounds the same when it doesn't interest you. I just put on a random Mahler track from spotify, french horn intro, cymbal crash, orchestral swell, a few crashes, then everything drops to emotional strings.... stunningly predictable. Beautiful, but nothing that requires focus.not really require that much focus as requires a symphony of Mahler.
Jazz can be reduced in the same way. My point is, if you don't know what the minutia is, you can't appreciate it.
-
Looking forward to tonight's show Originally Posted by enalnitram
-
yes and no) Originally Posted by AllanAllen
Of course classical can sound the same for the person who does not hear the language. And the level of that hearing can be different: some can hear Bach from Mozart, but not Haydn from Mozart etc.
I also appreciate jazz and can follow ideas, I think actually I can hear quite well. Usually when I listen I hear it with quite a lot of details and I remember a lot (it kind of slows down in my mind)
But I think it is mostly a question of human perception: I come to the same museum 100 times and pass by the painting without noticing it as if it is a wallpaper and one moment I stop astonished in from of it. How does it work? It is a complex topic.
But the thing is I am not speaking about it in this particular opening post.
I speak about genres and the genre is more or less conventional thing that originatess in certain cultural environment. We can describe it (more or less) and it has specific features. We can recognize these features instinctively if we are raised in respective culture (like composers, they used genres as reference a lot - especially in classical... not always deliverately but just because it is a part of the culture).
So speaking of classical, Symphony of Mahler a priori requires focus and attention all the way - it is just a social convention of how the genre exists (how it happens with every single person is a different topic)
Traditional jazz club gig does not require so much of constant focus - again it is a social convention of this genre.
And there are many reasons for that: trad jazz is an improvisation of many people on a given form: so often one piece does not have a real integrity or a form (especially in a live performance), some things can come out better some worse, trad jazz had a lot of light entertainment features - it is not bad but it automatically makes perception less focused more relaxed (less obliged).
All these things just exist as a cultural phenomenon. How we perceive them (each of us) is another question.
I think that jazz of course outgrew its 'light entertainment' origins but I think also it has created a contradiction for its further existence.
A lot of classical music is connected also from 'light entertainment' (I put specifically 'light' - as I think reading Dante or listening to Bach is also an entertainment just another level of complexity).
But still the general conception was classical art was that 'it is serious thing', and jazz just did not come from it, jazz players had to prove it almost conciousely.
And it is a part of the culture, we cannot avoid its influence.
Maybe it is a blasphemy to say on a jazz forum but however great the trad jazz gig is, or The Beatles song is (and I am a big fan of The Beatles since my childhood) it just cannot be on the level of the Bach's passions just because it is a different level of language.
-
But it works both ways. Some Boccherini will for me never match the ecstatic power of some late Coltrane. Originally Posted by Jonah
-
Sullivan Fortner is a terrifically talented young-ish pianist. I enjoy his style a lot.
-
I am looking forward to saying the words Originally Posted by Bop Head
Looking forward to tonight's show
"..pure 'circus-style' fun, like drum solos.."
within hearing of the drummer in my trio.
-
This is true. It’s easy to forget that we’ve had 300 years to weed out everything but the best quarter or so of the pieces written by the best two or three composers of the half-century. Originally Posted by James W
Its not really that different.
in two hundred years maybe everything but A Love Supreme will have drifted into obscurity and we’ll think all 1960s jazz was that good.
-
Interesting.... did you ever see peter in the 90's with Melvin Rhyne, or checked out any of Melvin's recording?
I loved those days....
Anyway... yes it just depends on gig and $. Is it a show or a standard jazz working venue gig.
I'm on west coast most of the time... Shows are different. You don't play as long and much more in the classical tradition. Jazz festivals... are loud and can be more like jazz gigs, as long as it's not major etc...
jazz gigs generally have the audience in your face, which I love. I like interacting with audiences.
Shows are never as much fun personally... even though that actually pay well.
A good day use to be... play an afternoon outside festival show and then soft dinner house gig and finish with a dirty club jazz gig that night...
Hey Jonah... I love playing Beatles tunes in simi jazz style ...
-
Jazz musicians playing in real concert halls dates back much earlier than the 60ies.
On January 16th, 1938, the Benny Goodmann Orchestra played at Carnegie Hall. On December 23rd and 24th of the same year at the same place the two "From Spirituals to Swing" concerts organized by John Hammond took place. Of course those concerts were an exception back then and most of jazz was still played in bars and night-clubs.
In 1944 the first "Jazz at the Philharmonic" tour was organized by Norman Granz (the last one was in 1983) and finally heralded the change in the reception of jazz from pure entertainment to an art form.
-
Haha. Originally Posted by pauln
I am looking forward to saying the words
"..pure 'circus-style' fun, like drum solos.."
within hearing of the drummer in my trio.
But I did not mind the trading of fours and eights and Joe Farnsworth's solo (there was only one real drum solo in Munich) at all.
The guy is a monster who can play dynamically from a whisper to Buddy Rich or even Bonzo loud. He is able to switch styles, time (to double and quaduple time) and even sticks and brushes (the latter demonstrated in his solo) at a split second.
He plays very melodically and musically and having worked at probably 1500+ concerts in another life I have to say that he is probably the best drummer I have ever seen live.
He (like the other three as well) seems to have a great sense of humor, has a lot of fum in what he is doing and is not afraid to go to the limit.
In short: Very musical and at the same time very entertaining.
EDIT: Bonzo is John Bonham of Led Zeppelin in case someone did not know.Last edited by Boss Man Zwiebelsohn; 09-25-2024 at 02:55 AM.
-
I thought it was Bonzo. Gonzo was a Muppet Originally Posted by Bop Head
-
You are of course right. Corrected. Originally Posted by ksaric
-
... We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold... Originally Posted by ksaric
-
-
This is exactly why jazz is so hard to get down these days. I'm busting my ass to get 2 gigs a month. A good week as a jazz musician decades ago would be my entire years gigs. The live social playing opportunities aren't there anymore. If they are, it's a tips gig, or even worse, volunteer festivals. I can only ask my guys to drive an hour to play an unpaid half hour so many times. Originally Posted by Reg
It's tough.... tough starting out, and I expect it's going to be tough to keep going.
Reply With Quote
Has anyone tried the Acoustasonic Player Jazzmaster?
Today, 10:08 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos