-
Well honestly I think this is part of the problem. And I agree with brwnhornet59. But part of the problem, as I see it, is this false, or true, demarcation line we set up between audience and artist, and then again with the management of the venue. Jazz is in a tenuous position, to be kind, because we EXPECT respect and then turn our noses up at audiences. They perceive this and think "F you." That perfectly explains where jazz is today.
Originally Posted by chrisnewlin
At this place and time we should be more in the position of educating and attracting and opening the door for audiences. When my band was very active I heard almost every night we played comments like, "I love this stuff! I didn't know I liked jazz!"
When an audience is there and see a band with their noses in music stands, pretending the audience isn't there, take long breaks or play tunes that go on forever and solo 6 choruses on each tune; disregard and disrespect the stage they're on, talk to each other between tunes like,
"What do you want to play?"
"I don't know, what do you want to play?"
"I don't know, what do you want to play?"
"I don't know, what do you want to play?"
Or tell inside jokes at the expense of the audience.
This is a different time. Miles Davis probably couldn't get a gig today. But no one should think they're Miles and turn their backs on the audience. It isn't an either them or us thing. Respect goes both ways. You know that in life. Playing is no different. An audience can be cultivated. There are many tools to do that now. It's harder because the audience is split in many directions and venues are far and few between. But I think it may be an easy out to blame the audience for lack of gigs or respect.
A common cry also blames the club owner for not appreciating your artistry or that of jazz. Well yeah. They're in the BUSINESS of making money, regardless how much they may of may not love jazz. It's got to pay for itself and you've got to take responsibility for getting people to show up.
So it seems to me there are three elements here: The artist, the audience and the venue. All want something. All are correct in wanting and expecting something. But you can only BE one of those things at a time and can only hope to control one. I can control my role as the artist in understanding, not vilifying others, and trying to provide the other elements something they may want while still not compromising myself as an artist. THAT is the challenge.Last edited by henryrobinett; 07-13-2012 at 05:25 PM.
-
07-13-2012 03:16 PM
-
You know this, but when it's done right, listening to live jazz is one of the greatest things in the world. Even someone who doesn't listen to it or considers themself a connoisseur of music has to admit that it was good. It's the same with listening to any music. You can appreciate other styles that you don't particularly care for as long as you can still identify that a lot of hard work went into becoming as good as possible. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
But the people that say it sounds like practicing? They're either not listening at all or they're hearing someone perform poorly. If there is jazz happening at a high level of playing ability, it will affect an audience.
That's why I say don't worry about playing to an audience, play the music for yourself, and do it as well as you can. The satisfaction you get from it will far exceed the praise that anyone in the audience can give you.
-
That's true and I think that's what we all do. But the art cannot grow if we all just do that. Art has got to be communicated, shared and appreciated if it is going to continue to live. Originally Posted by chrisnewlin
-
What was Charlie Parker saying, anyway?
I think he was great, a giant, deservedly praised. If jazz improv is an art, he is one of its masters. But I don't think there's any cogent "message" in his playing. (I don't fault him for this. Bird is a great case of a guy whose influence is almost entirely techinical! What is there to Bird *other than* the way he played? To paraphrase Hamlet, "The playing's the thing!")
Coltrane seems more of a "message" guy to me, a seeker / searcher, but the "message" of "A Love Supreme" is pedestrian, while the *playing* is wonderful. Coltrane conveyed the *feel* of yearning, of life as a quest, as well as any horn player I ever heard. *That* is what people hear in him.
Miles was as innovative as anyone in the history of jazz, and I love a lot of his work, but if he had a message, it seems to be 'bebop is too thick with chords and I want to chill out' and later, 'Melody, man, I love a sweet melody."
I love Miles. (Coltrane and Bird too.) But there three great jazz artists are not great because they *had* a message at all. They made great music and the joy of it comes from listening to that music, not pretending it has some message beyond itself.
-
What I was trying to say is that, at least for me, it's all about jazz now. At one point in my musical journey, I made a turn that I can not reverse and now I'm going forward towards jazz. If it doesn't make sense, then I have to add that english is my second language and I hope you get my point despite my poor english. Originally Posted by jster
I'm not sure why you add the "having a client she can't stand".
Are you saying that jazz musicians who have good gigs are like prostitutes who have clients they like?
Anyway, I have a very strong vision for jazz and my own experience and performance of it. It's all I want to do, and I got to do it. Playing some mass produced commercial stuff would make me feel like a prostitute. I'd be completely detached from the process because my heart and soul wouldn't be in it.
If I was to make a living from performing music, it'd have to be the jazz that I love to listen to, and love to play.
Please know that it's not an attempt to undermine other styles of music. It's just that the jazz style that I play resonate with me so much that I have made it my lifes work at this point, and I have to play that(bebop/modern jazz and gypsy jazz) and only that to be able to provide a 100% honest and heartfelt performance. Giving a honest and hearfelt performance is alpha and omega to me. If I can't do that, then I won't play to an audience.
I make no compromises and I only take gigs that resonate with me.
Of course, the kind of music I want to play might, and will change, in the future, because change is what jazz is all about. But I think you get the picture: I have to follow my muse - wherever it is going at the moment
-
I hear a hell of a lot in what Bird was playing. I hear a lot of human struggle. I hear just post War US and fierce pride. This was a funny period in the US and black american history and Parker epitomizes a certain segment of that. He wasn't overtly providing a message, like Coltranes spirituality, but the artist doesn't have to, as you know. But jazz is a phenomenal art form, as you also know, that crystalizes human emotion and thought. That's what I get from Bird. His Ko Ko solo, which basically was his calling card to the world after the recording ban during the war, blew peoples minds, and still blows mine. The message was, "we have arrived." Originally Posted by markerhodes
-
Maybe my mind is just frail, but every Bird solo blows my mind! From ripping through 32nd notes to honking on a flat 5, always musical. Amazing. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
I was just making a joke to lighten the thread a bit. In case there was any doubt I added a smiley face with a tongue sticking out. I tend not to use that when I'm making a heavy point or asking a deep question. Originally Posted by AmundLauritzen
What I was trying to say is that, at least for me, it's all about jazz now. At one point in my musical journey, I made a turn that I can not reverse and now I'm going forward towards jazz. If it doesn't make sense, then I have to add that english is my second language and I hope you get my point despite my poor english.
Anyway, I have a very strong vision for jazz and my own experience and performance of it. It's all I want to do, and I got to do it. Playing some mass produced commercial stuff would make me feel like a prostitute. I'd be completely detached from the process because my heart and soul wouldn't be in it.
If I was to make a living from performing music, it'd have to be the jazz that I love to listen to, and love to play.
Please know that it's not an attempt to undermine other styles of music. It's just that the jazz style that I play resonate with me so much that I have made it my lifes work at this point, and I have to play that(bebop/modern jazz and gypsy jazz) and only that to be able to provide a 100% honest and heartfelt performance. Giving a honest and hearfelt performance is alpha and omega to me. If I can't do that, then I won't play to an audience.
I make no compromises and I only take gigs that resonate with me.
Of course, the kind of music I want to play might, and will change, in the future, because change is what jazz is all about. But I think you get the picture: I have to follow my muse - wherever it is going at the moment
-
I don't doubt this, Henry, but that you hear those things doesn't mean they were the point of Bird's playing. You're certainly right about many bebop players thinking of themselves as attained a level of musicianship that raised them above "dance band" status. But that's more cultural than musical. Actors have a far higher status in society than they used to, but that isn't the message of any actor's part. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
I think Bird was great, a marvel, but I don't think he had a message beyond playing the best music he could play. As for jazz crystallizing thought, I can see that in some cases---some jazz compositions are more appealing as intellectual exercises than they are as, uh, tunes!--but I wouldn't cite Bird as a case of that. Many musicians are *not* that thoughtful. (Or to put it another way, when they stop thinking about music, they may not have much depth in thinking about anything, other than maybe how life on the road sucks and the money ain't what it should be!)
I think the mistake came from critics---too many of whom know little about music---who thought this music was great, and should be respected, but they could only think to argue that it was great because of its social message. But most horn players don't have a social message, and if a horn player does, why would his statement that, say, 'this society should be more justl' carry any more weight than a plumber's statement of the same thing? (I grew up on rock and blues and read a lot of those crappy mags as a kid and I used to think--because I read a lot of other things too--"who cares what a guitar player thinks about politics?" Now, if a guitar player informs himself about a subject, then he might have an informed opinion to offer, but to the extent he does, his guitar playing is irrelevant!
I think Bird was obsessed with music and devoted his life to playing it. I don't know that he had a lot to say about many other things. Now Miles was a more cosmopolitan guy, had other artistic interests, traveled in a broader circle, and had definite things to say, but even then, late in his life when some people said he was trying too hard to be popular, he said he was put on Earth to interpret music and that's what he did. That's the most important thing about Miles: his music.
-
I can't imagine Keith Jarrett would ever fulfill that prophecy. Quite the contrary he'd likely say: Originally Posted by Thoughtfree
"you're lucky to be here, so sit down, shut up, and NO COUGHING!!!"
I've always thought one has to be true to themselves as an artist. If joe public can dig what you've done, then both the player and the public are on the same plane.
-
markerhodes - have you read many Bird biographies? For as damaged as he was and for as much of a con man as he was, he was extremely articulate and apparently could converse with anyone about anything.
I think saying/guessing what an instrumentalists message is about is going far afield. Coltrane was about playing. I don't care if later he wrapped it in spirituality. But what I'm saying is, it's ALL subjective. That's what the experience and the reality of music is: what one takes from it.
To understand Bird, I would imagine, one has to take the context of the 30s and the 40s in pre and post war America for a black man. Kansas City, gangsters and upward mobility. Bird was about survival and arriving. Jazz is about that spontaneous moment of WHO I AM. Bird was definitely about "who I am." He was so much MORE than chops and burning. If that's all he was about, he would have been a flash in the virtuosic pan.
Bop was a language derived from pride, ascendency and individualism. It said this is who we are and we aren't taking shit. THAT'S what bop was about. Dizzy, Bird, Monk, Bud, were it's earliest and highest exponents. And none of them bowed to anyone. And their music represented that. It was fierce, defiant and broke all the commercial rules at the time. It defied anyone to join in. Trial by fire. You had to master the changes that were different from all the other jazz of the day. You had to master your keys, because if you wanted to sit in on Just Squeeze Me, Or Cherokee you might suddenly be in the deep keys at a breakneck tempo, just to test you.Last edited by henryrobinett; 07-13-2012 at 09:19 PM.
-
I hope I'm not throwing the proverbial monkey wrench around but Bird and Trane were heavy drug users and drinkers. They were high quite a lot. Same with Prez who did a lot of pot. If there was some kind of message, when was it delivered, when they were high or sober? Did they sound better high than sober or the other way around. We know that when you mess with the brains's chemistry, it acts in ways different than when it's normal (sober). Do we need to reevaluate that message? I've never used drugs and I can't drink so I don't know the difference between the feel of sober and high. (I'm literally afraid that under the influence of drugs, I might wind up being a homicidal maniac, an abusive person or a total jerk. It's less of a morality thing with me. Booze makes me barf before I can get drunk)). In other words, are we reading something into a solo that may not really be there? I simply don't know. When I play either I try to convey happiness or sadness. That's about it for me.
-
Hey hot ford coupe! You're partially right about that. Drugs do completely mess you up. But Trane only did drugs for a while. He kicked it by the time he got with Miles the second time. His drug period was during his first stint with Miles and he kicked it with Monk. You can tell the Coltranes playing soared and got into the sheets of sound after he quit.
The remarkable thing about Trane was his entire recorded career spanned only about 8 years. Most of that he was cold sober.
Bird was a disaster in that regard I hate to say. And unfortunately he spawned a lot of followers who thought that heroin was part of his magic. It put us back many years.
-
Thanks Henry. I had no idea that Trane kicked the habit. I wasn't too crazy about some of his latest work like Om. It was one big cut of free jazz. I couldn't understand it.
-
I'm not so sure about buying into the myth that what happened between the 40's and the 60's was enhanced as a result of addiction. Bill Evans was a musical genius before acquiring his addiction.
The musical gods of an era likely never to be heard again lived through a perfect storm of societal issues. To dismiss poetic genius that only resulted from untold years of total dedication to an art, and questioning it by asking what role addiction played is, IMHO, at best a disservice.
What effect did drugs have on Miles after he mastered his devils in the mid 50's. Clearly he and Trane took their game up a notch long after kicking their addictions, which if you think about it, is no small feat, for if getting and remaining clean is that easy most addicts would conquer their addictions.
I'd rather take the glass half full approach and personally feel those cats became dead poets in spite of their demons, not because of substance abuse.
It's easy to monday morning quarterback from the cheap seats having not set foot in another's shoes, i.e., black shoes. Those cats lived through a lot of *hit, none of it their own doing, and yet they blossomed in spite of strong odds against them. I'd be the last one to point a finger to say they should have remained clean for their genius to have credibility and recognition in the minds of all. I've all the respect in the world for those cats. Dead poets all around adorn my wall.
Last edited by 2bornot2bop; 07-14-2012 at 01:04 AM.
-
The story as I heard it goes: Originally Posted by hot ford coupe
He locked himself in a bedroom in his mothers house, and before going in the room told her no matter what you hear on the other side of this door don't open it. When he exited the room he'd rid himself of his withdrawals, but not his addiction. Once an addict, you're an addict the remainder of your life. To Trane's credit and determination he never used again. So too with many other players who experimented with drug use from that era.
-
I don't wonder if drugs enhanced their ability. I know it didn't. And for all they imagined it did, it tore them apart. I rather wonder how Bird would have played and how much longer he would have lived and what he would have created if he had not been on heroin. And alcohol was just what he drowned himself in while trying to kick the drug habit.
-
Oh yeah and Miles kicked before he even had the first band with Trane. It must've been tough because everyone in his band but Miles was a junkie.
-
I need to clear something up here. I'm not questioning the role of addiction in art or associating it with genius. I don't believe drugs enhance anything except, in the case of heroin or morphine, physical pain relief. It's like in the art world. Someone sees a piece of abstract art and proceeds to analyze it saying the reds signify the rage of society while the blue expresses the sadness of the rage. The green signifies the envy blah blah blah. Then you find out that the so called art was a drop cloth that was owned by a house painter who threw the drop cloth in the garbage and replaced it because it had too much paint debris on it. I was questioning if something like this was happening with other musicians in jazz without knowing the history of Trane, Bird, Bill Evans et al. Are some folks seeing something that's not there? Are the critics insightful or are they just full of crap phonies? It was more of "what are your thoughts" rather than a criticism. Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
I'm not so sure about buying into the myth that what happened between the 40's and the 60's was enhanced as a result of addiction. Bill Evans was a musical genius before acquiring his addiction.
The musical gods of an era likely never to be heard again lived through a perfect storm of societal issues. To dismiss poetic genius that only resulted from untold years of total dedication to an art, and questioning it by asking what role addiction played is, IMHO, at best a disservice.
What effect did drugs have on Miles after he mastered his devils in the mid 50's. Clearly he and Trane took their game up a notch long after kicking their addictions, which if you think about it, is no small feat, for if getting and remaining clean is that easy most addicts would conquer their addictions.
I'd rather take the glass half full approach and personally feel those cats became dead poets in spite of their demons, not because of substance abuse.
It's easy to monday morning quarterback from the cheap seats having not set foot in another's shoes, i.e., black shoes. Those cats lived through a lot of *hit, none of it their own doing, and yet they blossomed in spite of strong odds against them. I'd be the last one to point a finger to say they should have remained clean for their genius to have credibility and recognition in the minds of all. I've all the respect in the world for those cats. Dead poets all around adorn my wall.
Last edited by hot ford coupe; 07-14-2012 at 01:37 PM.
-
I am a novice to Jazz playing. But not a novice to art.
Art never exists in a vacum(sp). It exists because the artist has something they are trying to express, to communicate, to share. It has been said that music is a language of delightful sensastions, far more eloquent than words. The reason that most musicians play is there is something inside of us that needs to come out. There are things that I feel that I cannot put into words but when the notes come out just right I feel unburdened. I think this true of many of us.
Now if it is just for therapy as it is for me, then other people understanding it isn't important. But if it is for communication then other people understanding it is vitally important. Both classical and jazz music have suffered from people expecting other people to work hard to understand it. THEY WON'T. If you want people to understand it you have to make it simple and jazz of the last 70 years is anything but simple.
If you want an audience to relate to your music your music must first relate to them. Playing songs that they don't know or can't follow won't work. There are millions of songs and musicians and bands available to the public and they will reach out for the ones that they can understand easiest. Just the way it is. But there is no reason that we can't make this music accessible and still true to its heart of improvisation and technical mastery. The cannon of music that we use may be great to us but playing songs that were popular 50 years ago to an audience half that age won't get it done. Of the millions of new songs that come out every year in the popular music vein there must be some that can be incorporated into the cannon to make the genre accessible to the non jazz aficianado.(sp).
For me my love of jazz began with music from a jazz master that is generally panned as junk, his weakest stuff, something just done for the money. Yet it intrigued me because now I could relate the sounds to something I knew. It took me to a place where I wanted to know more and then do what he did and express beauty sorrow and joy through music. I refer to the creed taylor/wes montgomery music of the 60s the precursor to smooth jazz.
This concept, making it relative to the listener, is not academic for me. I am an ordained minister, who pastored a church for 13+ years. My preaching is from a jazz perspective: I go study the bible, the stories the language its meaning, its principles its concept and then I get up to speak in a totally improvisational manner. No notes, no script, just a theme that can go in many different directions. When I first began I was so technical that nobody paid attention. As I practiced my art/craft/vocation I learned to put the cookies on the bottom shelf where the kiddies could get at them. I learned that scifi author robert heinlein was spot on when he said, "you can serve someone the inner thigh muscle of an emasculate bull that's almost raw or you can serve them a rare steak." I think sometimes in jazz we are guilty of the former and not the latter.
Again, if you are playing for cathartic reasons and it isn't for anyone else do whatever you want. But if you want an audience to pay attention, care and participate you have to meet them where they are.
-
Jazz critics abound. The bigger question could be what makes a critic an authority when they've not lived an artist's life required to develop greatness. It's equal to attempting to define love...which is always experienced one step removed from the individual where it was born. No two people ever loved each other, for one can't put into words what they only experience themselves. Originally Posted by hot ford coupe
I'm more inclined to examine the rage factor of the society at large that generated such greatness from a vast community of artists that lived under and through those times. One can easily hear that rage being expressed in their music. That rage was eluded to above. One must examine the anger of the black community across the country for the purposes of defining the role it played in an artists music. Those cats developed their musicality in part due to the fact what else could they do to express themselves through bad times. I've read Gillespie's thoughts eluding to how certain songs were titled in code that gave reference to black rage, but of course only musicians were hip to the significance of the title.
At any rate I feel blessed to have lived in a time where clearly a seed was planted by artists of one generation, it took root, and came forth in another generation, as evidenced by these European cats. To that I can only nod my head and say: Yeah man.
-
Thanks for excellent replies to my OP. Sorry for delay in response. It was the "Inside the Actor's Studio" interview with James Gandolfini that prompted my post, though I may have paraphrased his words, in the remembering of them. Available on YouTube, and worth watching.
-
If music is your job, you do what it takes to make a living. That usually means playing a broad range of musical styles in different kinds of forums. If you get no satisfaction from your craft and you feel playing 'Call Me Maybe' is demeaning because you're a true artist, you should find another way to earn a living.
I decided to earn my living a different way long ago. Not because of the music. I just wasn't all that good. Still, I keep playing, studying, and writing. Not art really but expression which is akin to it. I'm not sure why I want to perform. But when I do, it matters that they like what I'm doing or I wouldn't be doing it.
Pretty soon network technology will allow us to form ad hoc groups and jam online at full fidelity. And people can listen. Maybe that will change what we consider an audience to be.Last edited by Spook410; 07-23-2012 at 05:57 PM.
-
Thanks, no worries. I'm the one who really wanted to know. Yeah, James is alright. I would second watching it. I never wanted to like the "Sopranos"; my ancestors are 100% Sicilian and the gangster stereotype gets tiresome after a while since it's only a small segment. And I never saw it on HBO, I watched on A & E where it was heavily censored. He really gave what could have been a ridiculous character a lot of different layers. Originally Posted by Thoughtfree
-
Originally Posted by paynow
I too am Sicilian. But, 50% on my mother's side. My fathers family is from Naples. Ya just can't get too pissed at Hollywood's portrayal of La Cosa Nostra . . . as long as the portrayal is real. The Sopranos was real. In downtown Jersey City, I lived amongst the very type people and events portrayed in the Sopranos. It was probably the most real portrayal of the organized crime world in NJ that I've ever seen. I can relate to and assign real people to almost every character in that series. Similarly I'm sure, your own experiences as portrayed in "A Bronx Tale". Chaz and DeNiro were fantastic! They were real man! THAT was real man! Those characters realy existed. That childhood really existed. I have no problem at all with that. It's a story that needs to be told . . . even if repeatedly.
What really pisses me off, is when writers misinterpret or inaccuratley portray the life or culture. I know of, or knew of absolutely no Sicilian mob boss who would ever order the death of his brother, as Michael did Fredo. That was pure bullshit and it really pissed me off. There is/was more than enough reality to portray. There was no need for stupid embellishment
Reply With Quote
Grant Green, What is This Thing
Today, 01:59 PM in Ear Training, Transcribing & Reading