-
I would like to know once and for all, was Bebop accepted by the previous guard of Jazz when it first was born? Also, how was Miles' Cool Jazz accepted initially?
Last edited by AlsoRan; 11-01-2014 at 07:36 PM.
-
11-01-2014 07:31 PM
-
The cats who invented bebop were part of the previous guard...
Kinda like rock embraced punk...most folks didnt get it, a few embraced it rabidly...
-
There was a huge backlash. Most established artists and musicians hated it and stated so publicly. These were hipsters. They were anti establishment. But they were part if the old guard. Not like Ornette who kind of came out of nowhere. Louis and Cab, the big stars of the day, were openly hostile and called it Chinese music.
-
right. the "swing boys" said about boppers "they flat their fifths, we drink ours". it was said with derision.
-
The usual. Most people were probably innovative. A small number rabidly (sorry to steal your adverb but it was such a good one) opposed and a small number rabidly in favor. The "in favor" crowd clearly won out since they're still the yard stick by which every jazz musician ever is measured before they can put out more modern stuff.
-
Thank you for confirming what I have read in my Jazz history studies.
Forgive me, but I asked this question to clarify something in my mind, and it might offend some of you but I had to test my thoughts and opinions. It helps to keep me honest, humble, and from becoming close-minded like many do on politics, religion, and well....art.
The reason I asked was to confirm that "Art" might possibly be in the eyes or ears of the beholder.
Most of us look at Bebop music and call it "art," and very high form of "art." Many of the Jazz musicians that we revered in the past, by your very words and the words of others, called it "trash" - if I am getting my history correct.
Now we call it "Art," and many of us here on the forum regard some other music genres as "trash" or at a minimum, "non artistic."
So now I have to ask, "Was Bebop 'art' all along and everyone's ears just had to catch up to it to be able to appreciate it, or is it 'art' because we call it 'art,' and never mind what the older generation of our Jazz heroes had to say at the time of its birth?
Your answers goes to the heart of the discussion/argument of whether or not a certain style of music is art, which style of music is art, and who has the authority to decide what is called "art" and what is not. Can't music just be "what I like?" And other music be "what I don't like."
The answers to this question will allow me to better address those who get run off from loving Jazz because they feel their music is looked down upon by the Jazz cognoscenti.
Again, I apologize if I offend anyone because I realize this subject touches at the very heart and core of many, as deep as religion or any other conviction.
-
Bebop is the reason jazz still exists and is still evolving. It is the restless spirit.
-
If someone likes jazz why would they be concerned with what jazz musicians think? You can like someone's music without liking them.
Originally Posted by AlsoRan
-
Well, we all have our own ideas about what "Art" is, or should be, it's a lofty, perhaps too philosophical a discussion and one that can easily derail the thread, so I'd like to be clearer about what you meant when you wrote:
"The answers to this question will allow me to better address those who get run off from loving Jazz because they feel their music is looked down upon by the Jazz cognoscenti."
..... in order to attempt an answer that may be relevant to your purpose. Do you mean - what do you say to people who don't dig Jazz because it comes across as condescending to uninformed listeners, too "uppity"? And if so, then I'm not sure whether a discussion as to whether bebop was "art" or not ties in with this. Why just Bebop? Why not say all of "Modern Jazz" ? (as much of it reeks more of an "Exclusive club" than Bebop). Besides, elitism is not necessarily borne out of an association with art (you can be "uppity" without being "arty").
But let me assume you just mean that people who like their music to be "entertainment" may be put off by anything that pertains to be "art". So for this I'd say let's simply agree that on the one hand we have "Art" music, and on the other "entertainment" music, which might include not just Pop, but folk music, street music, jingles, anthems etc etc.
But what about the blurry line between Art and Entertainment? Was Beethoven more Art than entertainment? Stravinsky? Ligeti? Without even venturing into the other arts, you'll agree that music, at least, can of course can be both, meaning it can be appreciated by non musicians and musicians alike. Some people even talk of the "art of entertainment", but let's not
FWIW, I personally think much of Jazz is indeed Art, and high Art at that, but much of that kind of Jazz is still entertaining. It wasn't just musicians that went to the War time Bop jams. So if modern listeners don't dig "creative" Jazz, then maybe the reasons why are more fashion related, that is to say due to psychological conditioning, stigma etc. They're probably looking for their kicks in other forms within their comfort zone. Maybe some listeners don't dig Jazz because of a whole realm of attached subliminal historical and cultural associations. This then may have nothing to do with whether Bebop is Art , or not.Last edited by princeplanet; 11-02-2014 at 12:50 AM.
-
I think ART has always been just a little ahead of the curve. Innovative art, the art that is revolutionary always upsets the Applecart. Impressionism, abstract, cubism, primativism, or in music serial, atonal, impression, free, bebop, modal. Always upsets the status quo conservative.
-
This was sort of an odd introduction to this whole discussion. I think the main issue with your post was the use of the words "style" and "genre" ... I'm opinionated and perfectly willing (eager even) to engage in a discussion of the artistic merit of just about anything... "style" and "genre" however have no place. Art is created as a real expression of what's going on inside the artist. Genre is a marketing concept and is generally never considered a boundary by artists.
Anyone who decries a particular expression as trash and not art because of what CD bin it's dropped into is too lazy to engage it meaningfully. At the same time anyone defending the merits of their art from criticism shouldn't assume that it's coming from genre bias. Art is meant to be engaged with and unfortunately most "jazz" guys generally come at the music from the artistic angle so people who address it as entertainment only frequently get the brush even though their concerns are usually pretty valid (especially if the musician wants any commercial success). That is unfortunate but people who only engage with music as entertainment should recognize that it's also an art form and anything they put out there will probably (and rightfully) be evaluated by serious critics and artists. Their criticisms are valid too.
With that said it can also be entertainment and in the best circumstances can be both so there's bound to be some friction.
As for whether it has to be "art" and "not art" but rather "what I like" and "what I don't like." I usually think of it all as art to a certain degree. Sam Cooke is deep art. It's entertaining, it's aesthetically beautiful, it's got different facets to be interpreted, multiple messages, his personal experience is rooted in there, his own original sound and voice are always present. Black Eyed Peas are shallow art. It's mildly entertaining for the 2 minutes it's on the radio and not a second more, it's aesthetically neutral or vaguely pleasing, it's simple, there's one message and it's usually shallow (if there's one at all), there's very little personal information, the sound is generic. That's my opinion and I welcome any discussion on the topic because that's part of the experience but I try not to stoop to addressing something as "not art" though sometimes in my arrogance I trip up. But just because it's all art doesn't mean it's exempt from meaningful critique - though I'll admit that sometimes I'm a little over-eager to deliver.
-
Further more I DON'T think that all of what usually gets thrown in the jazz bin is particularly high art. There's a lot of it that sort of makes me yawn (and no I'm not talking about Kenny G). What is someone really bringing to the table when they're a twenty five year old kid (yes that's pretty much me) out of any-old-place, Nebraska when all he's playing is ripping bebop over Bird tunes. Sure - maybe a great player - maybe super entertaining - maybe super hip - probably something I'd really enjoy listening to. If I evaluate it the same way I just evaluated the Black Eyed Peas then it might not really be the deepest art out there.
-
I was watching the Electric Miles Davis DVD last night on one of the things that was mentioned that Jazz and Jazz musician aren't entertainers. Not the first time I've heard that mentioned by hardcore Jazz musicians. Jazz is about creating and pushing the boundaries. Originally Posted by inwalkedbud
Bebop is more popular now than when it was the new music. Louis Armstrong hated Bebop and the Bebop musicians. From my reading the Bebop players for the most part respected Louis, but kept their distance. Dizzy was the on person who seemed to get a long with Armstrong. But as I've read Bebop is the music that can teach you to play what you need to know to play other styles.
-
I am really learning something today about how those who call Jazz or any other form of music "art" are thinking, and why the ugly arguments sometimes occur about one music having validity while another may not.
In my mind now, I believe there are some songs in Jazz, and other forms of music, that rise to the level or art. For me, art means that it is transcendent in some sort of way and meaningful.
Other songs may not get quite get there.
What really hit me was some of your thoughts that some music is entertainment as opposed to art. This music may or may not be meaningful, but can be entertaining. The artist who created the music may or may not agree, or may not even care.
Your dead-serious Jazz artist (and in many other types of music) is not seeking to be entertaining but is instead trying to make meaningful music. He or she cares.
So now in my mind a big difference between music that is a work of art and music that is not, is the intent of the artist.
As some of you have said, this topic can be huge in scope and difficult to discuss on a message board, but now I have better understanding of musicians that are "artists" and musicians that are just musicians. And there is nothing wrong with either approach.
-
I don't believe there is a curve, period. I think the idea that there is---that history is on some definite track and the far-sighted see what's coming before the rest---is mistaken. Is cool jazz or modal jazz better than bebop because they came along later? Is soul jazz better because it came later still? (Did bebop become 'conservative' when cool jazz emerged? Or soul jazz? Or fusion?) Originally Posted by henryrobinett
I still think bebop is worth playing even though it is old hat. Bebop is now far older than swing was when bebop arrived on the scene. Bebop is older than cool jazz, modal jazz, rockabilly, rock'n'roll, disco, funk, soul, soul jazz, rap, hip-hop, techno, heavy metal, speed metal, death metal, and god knows what else but I think it better than most--if not all of--those styles despite the fact that it is older and has been analyzed endlessly.
-
In Bach's time he was criticized for (I am paraphrasing here) making the music so complex the average listener could not enjoy it.
There is a definite parallel to bebop there. Some folks just can't hear it.
-
Hm. Why did you interpret "curve" as better than? The fact is that each major innovation has been ahead of the curve of taste and what is considered proper and good. The Rite of Spring famously caused riots in the concert hall. Ornette Coleman created similar upsets when he introduced the concept of free playing, although what he was doing then hardly sounds sounds revolutionary any more. Beethoven's late quartets caused quite an uproar. There most definitely a curve, but that not talking about better than scenarios. I didn't mention that idea at all. I don't even think in terms of better than. I'm really confused by what you're saying. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
Bop, to me, is still the most vital form of jazz. Bop influenced jazz I might add. I no longer listen too much to the ACTUAL beboppers. The recordings do sound old. But bop influenced jazz is still here today and still going very strong.
-
I don't interpret curve as "better than." (Though "innovation" is normally understood this way, or at least as an improvement.) I don't believe there is a curve. The notion of a curve has to do with a modern notion of progress in the arts (and progress in history.) The idea of the avant garde is to embrace the future, to see what's coming and get there first. I think this is a mistake. I don't think there is a curve to be ahead of. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
I think Bach is better than rock, even though it is centuries older (and even though I like a lot of rock music.) I have no qualms about 'better than' and 'worse than' but I appreciate that is not what you are talking about. You are talking about their being a curve to the history of art (-or music, at least) and I am saying I do not believe there is any such curve.
I
-
AlsoRan: In my opinion the question of your first post (was bebop accepted) has little do do with your later post (what art is, whether bebop is art, and who gets to decide and when). The beboppers, for the most part, were serious about what they did, just like many modern jazz (and other styles of music) musicians are. I'm sure Justin Bieber is also serious about what he does (in his case make money), and he (and other vapid entertainers) frequently refer to themselves (and are referred to) as artists. Add to it the fact that Bieber is more widely "accepted" than Parker and the entire thread gets confused: whose acceptance is needed for something to be declared art?
As mentioned, some of the earlier great jazz musicians disliked bebop. If you follow the NYC jazz scene you'll see that there are still rigid divisions among jazz musicians that mirror this divide, e.g. this article discusses one aspect of it
Sam Newsome's Blogspot: Soprano Sax Talk: What?s the Deal with ?Interview Music??
its a reaction to a comment in this article, which is mostly off topic, but also very interesting
Jazz Articles: JazzTimes.com Exclusive: A Conversation with Terence Blanchard and Branford Marsalis - By Jeff Tamarkin ? Jazz Articles
-
If there is no curve, then what happens when an artist or a movement completely changes the landscape? What is that then? Is this just a matter of semantics? Something happened. Something happens. A CHANGE occurs in the dynamics of the art. I see it as a curve. Someone else sees it as a change. But something happens.
-
Yea I think we're reading a little too far into Henry's "curve" ... I think he just means that innovators tend to stumble onto things that were before their time in terms of public taste. That's actually very different than what you're saying. Rock music isn't as good as Bach in pretty much any objective evaluation. But not all rock music is "ahead of the curve" because it came chronologically later. Jimi Hendrix was ahead of the curve. Motley Crue or Whitesnake or any of a hundred rocks bands in the seventies or eighties or any other time just rode the curve of public popularity. If it was polka that was hot in the early eighties I think their sound probably would've reflected that.
-
Obviously "stumble" is a figure of speech. They very deliberately forge their own path. Pardon the misstep there.
-
I agree. EDM and rap are old too. There is no curve and things can seem to stagnate at times. Not now. Vocals are in because American Idol inspired the world to sing. They teach people to sing poorly but I always look for a silver lining. I think there are more people that can carry a tune now than there used to be. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
It's easy to overlook the effect technology has on everything. Photography freed artists from realism. The one man studio in the 80's changed things. Now, vocal processing and looping are changing the landscape.
Bebop didn't come about or have anything to do with technology as far as I know. It did create a sort of self-perpetuating system of teaching. The theory associated with it was the work of musicologists.
-
The rock/punk analogy is very apt. I remember vividly when punk hit. Suddenly, if you could really play you were outre. Also, clothes became much, much more the gig. Punk was as much fashion and rebellion as it was music. Guys like The Police were openly derided by other bands and by fans for being (a) too musically talented, and (b) because Andy Summers already had a big reputation coming out of the second incarnation of The Animals (and other British rock bands). They had to log in hours at CBGB's in New York in order to get punk cred--it wasn't forthcoming in their homeland.
Meanwhile, the older rock guys mocked the punks as being non-players who shopped at a certain store and let themselves get spit on by the audience.
[The difference, of course, was that the bebop guys could play their patooties off.] The point, though, was that it was an abrupt change in the music that left the swing guys flat-footed. Punk, similarly, left the rockers on their heels--even though rock emerged from a similarly rebellious spirit. Then, of course, disco swept everyone away.
If you are of a certain age, it was pretty hard to dodge disco...but I digress.
I think Miles/cool was derided, too. Miles, of course, was trounced for not being able to play his instrument--couldn't hit the high notes. Armstrong and others weren't very generous in their love for Miles. Then, again, in his youth Louis could really cover the waterfront with his horn. He thought Miles was importuning his way onto the scene without adequately paying dues, i.e., great mid-register but no top end...shouldn't have dropped out of Julliard.
Reply With Quote
Knaggs Chena A
Today, 06:19 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos