-
I'd call you an idealist. I'm a utilitarian. It's a business first and part of my income so we are talking about survival and getting by. Practical real world applications. I mostly view it in that light, because that's what it is and that is the reality of making money as a musician, at least on the roots local/region level. Great, you're the next Wes. I/You am providing a service/product i.e entertainment. I don't put myself on a pedestal higher than that. It either makes a sufficient amount of monetary return to fund continuing to do it or it does not. Either my clients and audience are satisfied with the services i.e entertainment or they aren't. It either satisfies my artistic goals and desires as entertainment or it does not. The questions of importance with regard to actually getting shit done can basically be summed up in that order otherwise enjoy your university practice room or unpaid jazz jam sessions. As Miller said, we all wanna get paid.
Originally Posted by James W
Most musicians are sidemen because they would rather pontificate about their artistic value than hustle work. As I think I mientioned earlier most of the UT jazz guys are out there in a pair of shitkickers and a stetson, partly because of these reasons. Maybe I am elitist. I want to work. And play the kind of music I want to when I do it. That's why I live here where I do otherwise I'd be a farmer or mountain man out in the styx and we could talk about the artistic value of my bacon or my cougar rug in front of my wall tent while I chopped firewood or cut grass.
-
04-24-2023 03:27 PM
-
Who decides what "quality" art is ? (and is worthy of taxpayer funding) Originally Posted by James W
-
See reply no. 97. Experts, ideally (I don't actually know the kinds of people who comprise e.g. the Arts Council). Originally Posted by ruger9
-
Jazz isn't dead, it's just on life support. Scene? Well, there's somewhat of a scene in coastal cities, Chicago too. New Orleans too I assume, but don't know for sure.
Is that really all that different from the 1960s after Elvis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles et al, hit the big time? (OK, it probably is, but those historic jazz players were alive and kickin' back then, they aren't now)
When I go to jazz clubs in NYC and LA, I don't get the sense that the crowd is necessarily "elite". All the white table cloth plus suits and dresses pretension is his-tor-y.
-
The category "artist" (broadly defined as "someone who produces artistic output") is logically distinct from the category "professional" ("someone who does something for a living"). The overlapping Venn-diagram territory of "professional artist" is, in the long run of human history, a very small sub-category. Originally Posted by DawgBone
In my decades of acquaintance with musicians, some have been fully self-supporting pros, but many, many more have been semi-pros or plain old amateurs. The distinctions across these (sometimes overlapping) categories depend on matters intrinsic (degree of skill and training, dedication to the craft, ambition or lack thereof) and extrinsic (local economies, family obligations, limited opportunities). Being paid is certainly nice, but so is, say, living in a city that doesn't have a red-hot music scene, or wanting to have health insurance. Ask my Thursday night friends why they're holding down very good day jobs and playing (very well) on nights and weekends.
BTW, plenty of sure-enough pros have had full careers as sidemen or ensemble players. Unless the word is being used in a non-standard sense.
-
so-called "experts". Sorry, I can't go for that. It's ART. Quality is largely in the eye of the beholder (or the one purchasing said art). Thinking an "expert" should choose "quality" art for the populace to learn about is the very definition of elitism. Originally Posted by James W
-
I do. Almost 100% educated middle-class women. Our regional Board has a mandate to distribute money earmarked for the state's Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund (originally aimed at supporting huntin' and fishin' and, for those who don't kill critters, hikin'). Our particular bunch are earnest, sympathetic, helpful, and willing to send some money to support the music that aging Folk Scare survivors totter out to hear. Originally Posted by James W
-
I find a truly enjoyable amount of irony in this statement. Originally Posted by Jazzjourney4Eva
-
Experts exist, it's a fact. No one forces anyone to learn anything about any art. This is not about elitism, this is about levelling up, giving certain kinds of music a chance that might not have done had they been thrown to the vagaries of the market place, and forced to compete with manufactured pop music and associated record companies etc. Originally Posted by ruger9
No one is choosing these things for you, it's about being able to expand your palette to music that is not (easily or at all) marketable.
-
The non-monetary value of everything is in those beholders' eyes. What is the value of a hockey arena? How does it compare to the revenue-generating power of a concert hall? The public parks are full of sports fields and courts. Is pickleball more valuable than, say, a string quartet concert? Originally Posted by ruger9
Because I'm a grant writer, I pay some attention to who gets what in our area. Most of the awards go to making art available to everyone by supporting, say, the Chamber Music Society, museums, local theatre companies, and cultural festivals. I can't say where the threshold is, but I suspect that St. Cloud would not have the quality-of-life amenities it does without public-money (and private foundation) support. Larger metro areas have the populations and resources that can support some of this--I don't think the Dakota or Crooner's ask for arts grants. (And their ticket prices/cover charges reflect that.) But even Twin Cities culture relies on subsidies to retain two classical orchestras, two major art museums, an opera company, and a national-level professional theatre. And even the pro sports teams put their hands out for special deals for their giant (rather ugly) facilities.
-
You keep bringing up MN and maybe I shouldn't relive this but..... Originally Posted by RLetson
In the 90's I was given a region 2 arts council grant. It was mostly women judges and maybe one guy who might as well be a woman. They did not award me a grant when I played my blues guitar so I made up a "classical" piece betting that they would quickly accept such pandering and voila, a year of free lessons. some books, and some artist retreat with other grant recipients where me and a couple other young rope smokers hit it off pretty good in between the silly ass activities. Now, I could give a shit about classical guitar unless I"m short on firewood or just want to listen to Tarrega so I often think that maybe I should've just brought a louder amp the second time and been myself instead of compromising my person for the sake of a few freebies from some people who really don't like what I do. If I sound like a jerk then all I can say is I was raised around the best.
-
My point was not that public funding for the arts should not exist. My point was WHO chooses that art? I notice there was no rock, pop, or blues on your list. Why not subsidize shows at a local blues club? Or jazz club? Or rock club? That art is every bit as valid as chamber orchestras and theatre companies. That's my point. Originally Posted by RLetson
-
OK. "Elite" is a word that seems to get thrown around to suit any number of narratives these days. What does it mean to you? Originally Posted by DawgBone
-
Going to jazz clubs in NYC and LA isn't something most people can just jump in the car and go do on the weekend. A hotel room for a couple nights nearby the club in either city would break me never mind how much for the cover and drinks from upscale jazz club. How much do cigs cost in NYC now? Originally Posted by Jazzjourney4Eva
-
Well we’re talking about trips over time. And the airline and hotel points in no way make up for the personal and lifestyle sacrifices that come with the profession, so I’ll just leave it at that. Originally Posted by DawgBone
All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.
-
Good question Originally Posted by ruger9
especially consider how much funding an opera company requires, and then consider how much a weekly jazz club needs and bear in mind the audience share for both is about the same. Opera companies are unbelievably expensive to run. One opera company takes resources that might fund many projects. Opera is also a ‘prestige’ and yes, elite, artform that can attract corporate and private money.
Even within classical music, a professional chamber orchestra, baroque ensemble or new music group would cost a fraction of the outlay required to fund opera and ballet seasons. So it’s a tricky one…
This is the argument that was made for cutting ENO’s funding.
I’m not saying I come down on either side or have an easy answer. Unlike you, I personally like opera and ENO has been frequently innovative and the scrappy underdog of British opera; I’ve been to a few of its productions over the years including Terry Gilliams memorably bonkers production of Berlioz’s Faust. state funding might help it out on more unusual production that are risky financially rather than endless safe bet Puccini (nothing wrong with Puccini, mind). It might also help it widen access by subsidising tickets for people who might balk at spending hundreds on a night out that they might hate, but would be willing to try for the price of a few beers.
Otoh these are the sorts of questions funding bodies should IMO be asking themselves (although such arguments are often disingenuously used as a justification for cutting funding altogether)
-
Thanks for a thoughtful answer. As a disclaimer, I'm a big fan of Wynton, and it goes beyond the music, but on a spiritual level, as corny as it sounds, I have kind of personal reasons for it and it's been corroborated by other things I've learned about him. He's both a prince and a man of the people, who sincerely believes in and acts outs the American and humanistic ideals. I don't like everything he's done and thought some of his stuff was pretty turgid, but other stuff was of the highest order. As a human being though - I'm in awe of Wynton. As to the classical influence - I find his reverence for classical trumpeters such as Maurice André to be entirely understandable. I'm going through a phase with Andrés Segovia. I've hardly ever heard a better musician. On some stuff there simply isn't a bad spot, and every single note is alive and beautiful. How did he do that? Originally Posted by Christian Miller
I've ranted in the past about what I perceive as a certain mechanistic theory-based view of jazz teaching and contrasted it with the views of people like Barry Harris, Alvin Batiste, Wynton, Hal Galper and many of the testimonials gathered in Thinking in Jazz - there's definitely a disconnect there. As an amateur it's certainly something valuable to be aware of. It's a treasure, a formidable artistic innovation. My "hidden master" teacher certainly had one foot in both worlds, it's probably unavoidable for today's players. I have mixed feelings about the takeover of jazz by academia, but it's likely that my teacher, had he been American, could have had a career at Berkeley or like institutions which were/are largely absent in France.
-
I'll go with an easy example, someone many jazz fans seem to resent or dislike - Diana Krall. I personally love her and think she's a great musician. We went to see her with my wife two or three years ago and are going again in a couple of weeks. My wife is that average person who thinks of jazz as purposely awful music. Yet she adored Diana's concert the last time. Joe Lovano and Marc Ribot were on stage with her and it wasn't all easy listening. Lovano didn't hold anything back. Well my wife happened to love Joe Lovano's playing as well. I was really suprised. That didn't turn her into a jazz listener, but how do you explain that? To me it's because of Diana's talent for connecting with the average listener - for reconnecting with the music's popular roots. It may well be that what jazz needs is not one but fifty Dianas - then there would be less talk of jazz being on life support. Originally Posted by AllanAllen
-
ACE's reasons for ENO's funding cut were described by Norman Lebrecht in October last year:
Arts Council England, facing the need to make cuts of between 10 and 20 percent, had earmarked London’s second opera house as a prime target. ENO, it was argued internally, had ceased to be a full-fledged opera company, renting out the Coliseum for much of the year to stage musicals. Its infrequent productions were unimposing, its management style abrasive and its public profile invisible. Cut.
ENO was perplexed:
The ENO and our audiences remain in the dark as to why ACE decided to remove our status as a National Portfolio Organisation, despite us meeting or exceeding all the criteria they set: one in seven of our audience are under 35, one in five of our principal performers are ethnically diverse and over 50% of our audience are brand new to opera. We have been bringing opera to people nationally via multiple completely free broadcasts, in innovative ways such as car parks via drive-in opera and over TikTok, as well as in more traditional settings, and over 50% of visitors to opera at the Coliseum are from out of London.However, after protests by the great and the good, and a proposal to go up north, ACE has granted ENO a reprieve.
-
So this word 'academia' often negatively applied in jazz. Let me mount a defense. Originally Posted by m_d
Berliner's work is academic. His was the only book on the history of jazz I could actually cite in essays because it is a fully referenced work of serious musicology and ethnography. Most other jazz books lack this level of rigour. The fact that it is also highly readable and engaging does not change that. It is an academic work in a way which, say the Bumper Fun Berklee Book of Chord Scales or whatever they call, is not.
As far as academic work on jazz education goes, the majority of papers I read were highly critical of approaches such as CST based on their lack of grounding in historical jazz practice etc. I read one doctoral thesis on Barry Harris.
All of this is academia. Academic writing led me to discover Berliner's book.
OTOH, I get the feeling there are those out there who end up in the workings of this or that music school, and can then call yourself a Professor while essentially being a music tutor. From this perspective I was a professor of guitar briefly. I find this ridiculous. You might be a great player and teacher but this doesn't mean you have any academic background at all. I also think there's many people who go to a certain institution for a few years and end up working there.
Maybe I'm being unfair.
In the UK at least colleges are now being required to hire teachers educated to master's level. I can see upsides and downsides to this. Anyway, that's a whole other rant.
Chord Scale Theory is not academic. It maybe (as Rick Beato suggests among others) a way to establish a syllabus so that music schools could achieve accreditation, but I don't think academic is the right word. It's more like pseudoscience quite honestly (thought that exists in academia too lol.)
TBH - I notice so many musicians have been to Barry Harris's class and not become die hard boppers. This suggests too me for many there exists more a synthesis between tradition and modernity. Outside of New York I think this manifests itself in a false dichotomy between the two - learn standards and play like exactly the record or play only original music. There are professors at UK music schools who have to read standard repertoire from iReal but are highly regarded in contemporary jazz circles. I don't think this would be the case in NY. If I feel this is becoming less the case it may be at least in part down to Wynton's influence.
There was a certain UK jazz journalist who took it upon himself in the 2000's to write article after article for Jazzwise contrasting the 'innovation' on the UK scene against the hidebound American music overtly influenced by Wynton. (Wynton was often berated in these essays). Of course of anyone even vaguely aware of what was going on in NY jazz during the 00's this narrative seems absurd. No idea if these sorts of editorials are still being written. I've long since stopped reading what music journalists write.
-
What I'm saying here is the inside story as I heard it from a supervisor at Trinity, who knows and worked with person who made the ultimate decision at ACE. Make of that what you will, I found it interesting because it clashed with what I'd heard in the media. Originally Posted by Litterick
So - sorry yes indeed, the reason for the cuts being were ultimately down to a government decision. Technically, no, the cut specifically to ENO was not mandated by government (although it seems like it was reported as such by some), but in spirit what I said above was misleading.
TBH the opaqueness described by ENO sounds like most people's experience of ACE. TBF, I think ACE criticism of ENO also sounds quite plausible and TBH not unreasonable and not in contradiction with what I was told.
Assuming ACE cuts have not been reversed overall, something else will be cut instead, maybe something not in London.
whether or not cuts are necessary or ideological is a political and economic question. 10-20% of ther ACE budget is miniscule (approx 0.1%) compared to the deficit, obviously.Last edited by Christian Miller; 04-25-2023 at 05:29 AM.
-
Oh, I'm all for "academia". Just not the kind of phoney, corrupt, useless diluted one - encapsulated by the terms "intelligent yet idiot" or "crétin à diplôme" in French. Not charitable but true ; a scourge of our world far beyond the musical world if you ask me. Berliner's book is extraordinary, a work of anthropology and musicology of the highest caliber. I came to it through a Wynton interview many years ago. Good to know CST is being critized in academia itself, I wasn't aware of that. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Re: Barry Harris students, a few videos on YouTube give an idea of what his music lab was about and it wasn't all hard bop, as per those few performances on YouTube by Barry either solo or with a choir - I wish a couple of albums had been recorded of those.
Re: criticism of Wynton, he isn't perfect, especially as no one with that scope of ambition and vision is exempt from mistakes. He was successful in making an impact that IMO was positive on the whole. His insistence on a return to an acoustic sound, if only that, was immensely positive. Too much of the criticism I read of him seemed to come from ignorance or plain professional jealousy.Last edited by m_d; 04-25-2023 at 12:54 PM.
-
I haven't read many papers that are enamoured of it. Or any, come to think of it. Originally Posted by m_d
No-one's perfect. I happen to think he's a force for good, and as I say agree with a lot of what he says, that doesn't mean he's beyond critique. TBH most of the critiques I have are more observations about the current state of jazz.Re: Barry Harris students, a few videos on YouTube give an idea of what his music lab was about and it wasn't all hard bop, as per those few performances on YouTube by Barry either solo or with a choir - I wish a couple of albums had been recorded of those.
Re: criticism of Wynton, he isn't perfect, especially as no one with that scope of ambition and vision is exempt from mistakes. He was successful in making an impact that IMO was positive on the whole. His insistence on a return to an acoustic sound, if only that, was immensely positive. Too much of the criticism I read of him seemed to come from ignorance or plain professional jealousy.
-
How is it elite? It didn't cost me more to see The Mask of Orpheus than it did to see Herbie Hancock or my ticket for Shakti. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
It is a common complaint, not a secret. Everyone resents opera because it takes so much of the cake, but everyone knows opera can exist only if it receives a lot of cake. Opera is not strictly music and all the non-musical stuff (sets, their designers etc.) inflates the budget. String quartets are strictly music, but receive half what they need. To make it worse, rich people enjoy the opera, but seemingly pay less than their fare share.
But killing the English National Opera, the opera that sings in English and strives to be accessible, was an absurd proposition. Covent Garden is the money pit, but it has the international reputation and the powerful supporters.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos