Blue Note President Don Was on the Future of Jazz...

[jakeyboy1216]

Another Huff Post article. This time from Blue Note Records prez, Don Was.

Here's part of what he has to say:

"Jazz is a pretty broad term. A lot of folks don't even like to use it anymore. I think that the definition is always supposed to be changing. If it encompasses people doing stuff on their iPads, it's the spirit in which they do it that matters more than the technological developments.

If you play with a certain abandon and improvisational sense, you can swing like a motherfucker with your iPad."

Here's the entire article: Blue Note President Don Was on the Future of Jazz*|*Stephen Maloney

[fumblefingers]

Just what are we to make with a throw-away line like that? Not very helpful. I think he's talking about the kind of crap that appeals to kids. And I think he got backed into a corner with the question from the interviewer a little bit too. Surrendered too quickly.

I remember someone interviewing Earl Scruggs about synthesizers replacing instruments in the 1970s.

How'd that turn out?

People want to hear acoustic music, and they also want to hear electric guitar. The more organic and human the sound being generated, the better. They don't want to listen to a machine, for the same reason that they won't want to relate to or marry one, despite all the BS headlines that are coming out about robots. I heard all that in the 1980s when I was studying computer science. It's a partial truth, and the partial is small.

[Jim Soloway]

Just what are we to make with a throw-away line like that? Not very helpful. I think he's talking about the kind of crap that appeals to kids. And I think he got backed into a corner with the question from the interviewer a little bit too. Surrendered too quickly.

I remember someone interviewing Earl Scruggs about synthesizers replacing instruments in the 1970s.

How'd that turn out?

People want to hear acoustic music, and they also want to hear electric guitar. The more organic and human the sound being generated, the better. They don't want to listen to a machine, for the same reason that they won't want to relate to or marry one, despite all the BS headlines that are coming out about robots. I heard all that in the 1980s when I was studying computer science. It's a partial truth, and the partial is small.

Perhaps you'd do better speaking for yourself rather than the broader "people". I have no problem listening to machines. There's lots of great music being made that way and I get a lot of pleasure listening to some of it.

[jakeyboy1216]

Just what are we to make with a throw-away line like that? Not very helpful. I think he's talking about the kind of crap that appeals to kids. And I think he got backed into a corner with the question from the interviewer a little bit too. Surrendered too quickly.

I remember someone interviewing Earl Scruggs about synthesizers replacing instruments in the 1970s.

How'd that turn out?

People want to hear acoustic music, and they also want to hear electric guitar. The more organic and human the sound being generated, the better. They don't want to listen to a machine, for the same reason that they won't want to relate to or marry one, despite all the BS headlines that are coming out about robots. I heard all that in the 1980s when I was studying computer science. It's a partial truth, and the partial is small.

Did you read the entire interview? I don't think Don was being "backed into a corner". The interviewer was simply making an observation about how younger musicians are turning to less traditional methods to play music. I think what Don is trying to say is that, regardless of the instrument that is used to create it, if music swings and moves you, then that's cool. For Jazz, or any music for that matter, to evolve and remain relevant, it has to constantly innovate.

Here's another quote that backs up what I'm trying to say:
"I believe that reinvention and evolution are built into jazz on a cellular level. If you really follow the music that we created throughout the history of the company, we were always pushing the boundaries, and that's something we will continue to do.

If you accept that the state of jazz is supposed to be one of constant evolution, these times are right in keeping with it. There's a place for a kid with an iPad."

[fumblefingers]

Perhaps you'd do better speaking for yourself rather than the broader "people". I have no problem listening to machines. There's lots of great music being made that way and I get a lot of pleasure listening to some of it.

Who here does not speak for himself? This is art so is highly subjective/opinion based.

four people gave their opinions here:
the interviewer
Don Was
you
me.

These truths are self evident.

[fumblefingers]

Did you read the entire interview? I don't think Don was being "backed into a corner". The interviewer was simply making an observation about how younger musicians are turning to less traditional methods to play music. I think what Don is trying to say is that, regardless of the instrument that is used to create it, if music swings and moves you, then that's cool. For Jazz, or any music for that matter, to evolve and remain relevant, it has to constantly innovate.

Here's another quote that backs up what I'm trying to say:
"I believe that reinvention and evolution are built into jazz on a cellular level. If you really follow the music that we created throughout the history of the company, we were always pushing the boundaries, and that's something we will continue to do.

If you accept that the state of jazz is supposed to be one of constant evolution, these times are right in keeping with it. There's a place for a kid with an iPad."

Ok. That sounds like the jazz version of Mom and Apple Pie.

Kids jump on trendy bandwagons. History has shown that cold, machine like, electronic music fades in its appeal, and has limited appeal in the first place. People like to sense a warm blooded human in the loop. People like to know that an instrument is being pressed, plucked, struck, strummed, blown into by a sensitive human being with something individual to express. And we don't even need to mention singing, do we?

Electronic, high tech music can be an interesting distraction, no question about it. I dig some of it too FWIW.

But lets say I'm flat wrong. Please provide the link to the iPad playing improvising mofo, who does so without real instrumental playing in the mix.

i respectfully call BS, in the nicest possible way of course.

[pamosmusic]

Kids do jump on trendy bandwagons but the old curmudgeons who talk down on them for it usually find out ten years later they missed something important. Baroque counterpoint. Jazz. Bebop. Blues rock. Punk. Trendy doesn't mean worthless.

[Jim Soloway]

Ok. That sounds like the jazz version of Mom and Apple Pie.

Kids jump on trendy bandwagons. History has shown that cold, machine like, electronic music fades in its appeal, and has limited appeal in the first place. People like to sense a warm blooded human in the loop. People like to know that an instrument is being pressed, plucked, struck, strummed, blown into by a sensitive human being with something individual to express. And we don't even need to mention singing, do we?

Electronic, high tech music can be an interesting distraction, no question about it. I dig some of it too FWIW.

But lets say I'm flat wrong. Please provide the link to the iPad playing improvising mofo, who does so without real instrumental playing in the mix.

i respectfully call BS, in the nicest possible way of course.

This has vocals but everything else was done on an iPad with no "real" instruments.

[AlsoRan]

This has vocals but everything else was done on an iPad with no "real" instruments.

Oh crap! That sounded pretty good to my ears. Her voice reminded me a little of Corrine Drewery with the background voices blending in.

The bald gentleman looked like Jordan Rudess from Dream Theater.

Heck of a lot better than "autotuned voices."

[Stevebol]

I was wondering why there are no cell phone bands but I guess there are. Does Android still have latency issues? My guess is it does.

[pushkar000]

Electronic music is the same as all music - made by musicians on an instrument.
"Cold and machine-like" doesn't mean devoid of artistry, humanity and love.

[fumblefingers]

So it was synthy. Melody, harmony and rhythm are accurate but it's sterile and devoid of expression. All that is a given, nothing new. Some like, some don't like, others like it in small doses, like me.

of course this was all for an ad selling an app, right?

the take away ironically is not that we don't need musical instruments to make music like this song, it's that we don't need that guy playing his iPad either. You see, while it was "jazzy" (I guess) it wasn't jazz. There was no improvisation - it was all composed. That means it could have been written in Finale, Sibelius, or another good music app. Such apps allow you to write for combo, band, full orchestra, etc, etc. and then you can simply press play and stand back.

ignorant flunky journalist: "So, is like jazz dead, because of like, you know, Apple?"

person with a real job: "Why, no, you ignorant caved-head journalist puke, you."

[fumblefingers]

Electronic music is the same as all music - made by musicians on an instrument.
"Cold and machine-like" doesn't mean devoid of artistry, humanity and love.

love? This was a software ad. It's called ca$h.

[fumblefingers]

This has vocals but everything else was done on an iPad with no "real" instruments.

ok but I specifically asked for an improvising "mofo", like the eloquent Don Was referred to. The context is JAZZ, remember?

[pushkar000]

love? This was a software ad. It's called ca$h.

My comment was targeted at electronic music in general. I hadn't even seen this video until right now. I thought that was a great arrangement...still a software ad though. There were some wanky bits which I felt were just to highlight the software.

Eyal Amir teaches at the conservatory where I used to study. He is a great musician. I haven't taken any of his classes but he is a popular and knowledgeable teacher.

[fumblefingers]

Kids do jump on trendy bandwagons but the old curmudgeons who talk down on them for it usually find out ten years later they missed something important. Baroque counterpoint. Jazz. Bebop. Blues rock. Punk. Trendy doesn't mean worthless.

Trendy doesn't necessarily mean worthless. It most often means temporarily profitable, yet worthless after a very short period. There are many exceptions of course, so experimentation and creativity are often virtuous.

but then that's kind of a side discussion relative to the interviewer's provocative "question".

[fumblefingers]

My comment was targeted at electronic music in general. I hadn't even seen this video until right now. I thought that was a great arrangement...still a software ad though. There were some wanky bits which I felt were just to highlight the software.

Eyal Amir teaches at the conservatory where I used to study. He is a great musician. I haven't taken any of his classes but he is a popular and knowledgeable teacher.

Very interesting. What school is that?

does he advocate the cessation of all instrumental study?

[pushkar000]

Very interesting. What school is that?

does he advocate the cessation of all instrumental study?

Rimon School of Jazz and Contemporary Music in Israel.

He does not advocate the cessation of all instrumental study.

[Jim Soloway]

love? This was a software ad. It's called ca$h.

I don't believe it is an ad. It's just a very cool piece of music by some very talented musicians with an explanation at the end. Hard to watch it and imagine that they weren't having a lot of fun doing it. As for cold and sterile, I don't hear that at all. In fact, not one bit.

[fumblefingers]

Jim - you're missing the point. You like it, you think they're cool, you think it's fun, I get it. Let's set that aside so that we can focus.

The point it is was electronic. The "piano" sounds were synthesized, as were all other parts. What we hear on this song is no different from what we hear on some other synthesized works - digitized simulation of real musical instruments.

Whether some like it or not, we CANNOT produce the spectrum of sounds that are produced from real instruments - especially acoustic instruments - through this means. Not yet anyway.

A very mild curiosity - do you play nylon string guitar, acoustic piano, violin or other stringed instrument? Do you listen to same? Are you familiar with their expression techniques beyond simple loud and soft? Do you hear differences in the sound produced by different masters of these instruments? Put another way, do you find these iPad synthesized bass sounds to be equivalent to those produced by say... Ron Carter?

Here's another way to reveal the truth - please explain why they needed a human singer to produce this work. I mean, we've got the iPad, right?

[pushkar000]

I don't believe it is an ad. It's just a very cool piece of music by some very talented musicians with an explanation at the end. Hard to watch it and imagine that they weren't having a lot of fun doing it. As for cold and sterile, I don't hear that at all. In fact, not one bit.

I enjoyed it as well. Cold and sterile definetely not. Clearly they were having fun. But my impression was definitely that they were trying to put the app at the forefront. Some synth parts were clearly interfering with the singing, I doubt that was a musically motivated decision. Of course I don't know for sure.

You know fumble, one could also take your argument a step further and say the guitar or paino or violin are "not human enough" compared to the human voice itself. These instruments cannot produce the spectrum of sounds produced from the human voice. Can the basslines of Ron Carter ever adequately imitate the subtle vocal inflections of a baritone singer?
Anything which can produce 12 notes on command is an instrument 100% real.
Different instruments have different strengths and different weaknesses. The "humanity" of an instrument lies in the way it is used by a musician...not in the surface comparison of its merits and disadvantages.

[fumblefingers]

we shall see. casual observation tells us that the high technology Hype Cycle lasts for 20-80 years.

i believe that these tools will be instrumental aids, as opposed to instrumental AIDS (so to speak), for longer than anyone reading this forum will live.

[Jim Soloway]

Jim - you're missing the point. You like it, you think they're cool, you think it's fun, I get it. Let's set that aside so that we can focus.

The point it is was electronic. The "piano" sounds were synthesized, as were all other parts. What we hear on this song is no different from what we hear on some other synthesized works - digitized simulation of real musical instruments.

Whether some like it or not, we CANNOT produce the spectrum of sounds that are produced from real instruments - especially acoustic instruments - through this means. Not yet anyway.

A very mild curiosity - do you play nylon string guitar, acoustic piano, violin or other stringed instrument? Do you listen to same? Are you familiar with their expression techniques beyond simple loud and soft? Do you hear differences in the sound produced by different masters of these instruments? Put another way, do you find these iPad synthesized bass sounds to be equivalent to those produced by say... Ron Carter?

Here's another way to reveal the truth - please explain why they needed a human singer to produce this work. I mean, we've got the iPad, right?

I am not missing the point. I just don't buy your point. To me the purpose of making music is to transform thought and emotion into sound. That is the primary standard that I use to judge the quality of sound: did it allow the musician to transform their thought or emotional intent into a sound that communicated that appropriately? I say it did.

Are these sounds the equivalent of Ron Carter? No, but so what. I don't think makes the musical result inherently inferior, just different in the same way that Picasso or Van Gogh are different from Rembrandt.

[hans halmackenreuter]

I am not missing the point. I just don't buy your point. To me the purpose of making music is to transform thought and emotion into sound. That is the primary standard that I use to judge the quality of sound: did it allow the musician to transform their thought or emotional intent into a sound that communicated that appropriately? I say it did.

Are these sounds the equivalent of Ron Carter? No, but so what. I don't think makes the musical result inherently inferior, just different in the same way that Picasso or Van Gogh are different from Rembrandt.

So True! Your mind is the instrument.

[fumblefingers]

I am not missing the point. I just don't buy your point. To me the purpose of making music is to transform thought and emotion into sound. That is the primary standard that I use to judge the quality of sound: did it allow the musician to transform their thought or emotional intent into a sound that communicated that appropriately? I say it did.

Are these sounds the equivalent of Ron Carter? No, but so what. I don't think makes the musical result inherently inferior, just different in the same way that Picasso or Van Gogh are different from Rembrandt.

my point? my points are:

1. The interviewer doesn't have a very good understanding of what jazz musicians are really doing with tech. i suppose one could say that's why he asked an industry expert. but the way he asked was a provocative leading of the witness.

2. the range and subtlety of expression that electronic technology is capable of - at this point in time - is much more narrow than that of the acoustic instruments, and for that matter, even "conventional" electric instruments like the guitar. OTOH - electronics can make sounds that acoustics aren't capable of - and some of them have proven to be appealing to people in a lasting way.

3. It's a free country. One can do whatever they wish. They can satisfy themselves, take selfies, navel gaze, etc. They can conduct failed experiments. They can play with a synth all day long for all i care. But there's the rub you see - what they can't do is make people give a damn. What they can't do is force people to like it. People will decide, and in fact have decided historically. John Cage got a down vote. Pink Floyd got both up votes and down votes (more guys than gals?).

Individuals go through phases as they grow up, and what they have shown over time is that they prefer something genuine as opposed to sterile/synthetic. Do people who have grown up with electronic sounds like electronic sounds more than their predecessors? sure. But over the arc of their lives have shown that they don't want electronics to replace acoustics, or even "real" electric instruments. They would rather hear and watch their hero (like Van Halen or Steve Vai?) playing an electric guitar than some dude with a cheeky smile playing an iPad.

So you'll have to negotiate with them, not me.