Joined: 12 Feb 2004 Posts: 6133 Location: Des Moines
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject:
An excerpt from an essay in progress.............
The notion that Jazz is only appreciated by the musically literate is absurd. In years past when Jazz was more popular the public was more musically literate? I dont think so. We play Jazz for very appreciative audiences of elementary school children with no musical knowledge. My wife has zero musical knowledge and can identify the music of Thelonious Monk, Charlie Parker and others. Her favorite drummer is Matt Wilson. She describes the music of Dave Douglas as pretty. Yet the musical snobs diss her interest as nave and meaningless. I have news for you. People like her are your audience. They are the supporters of the arts. They buy the recordings and pay the admission to clubs and concerts. This idea of looking down your noses at the ignorant because they just dont understand is a huge part of the problem and certainly not a part of the solution. The more likely scenario for the waning interest in Jazz is the fault of the musicians themselves. Too many times the public is exposed to unprepared, poorly dressed musicians with an attitude. They show up with their Real Books, no set list, ignore the audience and expect to be paid for what is essentially a glorified jam session. Sorry, but playing the head, everyone solos, then play the head out is really boring. In fact, it sucks. And my wife is offended by such lackadaisical performances. _________________ Bill Bergren
I think that is part of it. But jazz is a stage-learned art. Yeah aebersolds and basement jamming with co-players helps, but performing and getting that performance feeling is what helps us jazzers learn the art outside of the practice room. And since everyone has to start somewhere, a lot of beginners (who have a lot of passion and interest to perform) do play concerts that are real books head-solo-head form. We all gotta start somewhere. Is the concert any less boring if its a bunch of kids playing like that, but playing their instruments well?
Part of the problem could just be the public's waning interest in music itself. I have many friends who plainly do not listen to music. Most of my friends (other then my combo mates and fellow pro music-hopefuls) do not need music to live their lives fine.
I'm not sure
JMG _________________ The thing to judge in any jazz artist is, does the man project and does he have ideas. MilesDavis
"Always be heard - no matter the dynamics."-Mr Adolph Herseth
Yamaha Xeno RGS 2008
Bach Strad 1973
Olds Ambassador 1963
Laskey 65MC
Joined: 12 Feb 2004 Posts: 6133 Location: Des Moines
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:14 pm Post subject:
JazzmanGIANT wrote:
I think that is part of it. But jazz is a stage-learned art. Yeah aebersolds and basement jamming with co-players helps, but performing and getting that performance feeling is what helps us jazzers learn the art outside of the practice room. And since everyone has to start somewhere, a lot of beginners (who have a lot of passion and interest to perform) do play concerts that are real books head-solo-head form. We all gotta start somewhere. Is the concert any less boring if its a bunch of kids playing like that, but playing their instruments well?
Part of the problem could just be the public's waning interest in music itself. I have many friends who plainly do not listen to music. Most of my friends (other then my combo mates and fellow pro music-hopefuls) do not need music to live their lives fine.
I'm not sure
JMG
The performer should memorize and rehearse the tunes if they want to be taken seriously. Respect for the music and the audience demands the shedding it takes to know the tunes and create interesting renditions. Anything less is unacceptable. _________________ Bill Bergren
Jazz is evolving. Whoever said "no one now-a-days knows bye bye blackbird" was dead on. Jazz is all about taking an existing tune and screwing around with it. No one recognizes Bye Bye Blackbird, Stella by Starlight, or any other crusty pop tunes, so you need to draw from the musical vernacular. We have some forward thinking artists. Brad Mehldau includes a fair amount of popular tunes in his performances, and he does them extremely well. Roy hargrove has been fusing hip hop/soul and jazz. Maria Schneider is doing a pop-jazz-orchestral thing. Steve Coleman has been doing his own thing for a while now.
Some people don't like it, and say its not jazz. You know what the cats pioneering be-bop back in the day called people like that? Moldy figs. They are the cats who refuse to leave the collapsing building until they're sitting in a pile of rubble. I say we call it Jazz until we call it something else.
The Latin as a dead language example was good, but incomplete. Yeah latin is a dead language and no one speaks it anymore, but it also happened to spawn spanish, italian, french, et al. _________________ -GET OVER HERE!
-1964 Olds Super Balanced Depleted Uranium single flue Harpoon (w/custom coprion hand guard i got from a 1925 Conn Erradicator.) Akright converted handle w/calfskin grip (143xx)
Joined: 12 Oct 2003 Posts: 1292 Location: boulder, colorado
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:13 pm Post subject:
You guys make good points.
I'm with Bill, in believing that sight-reading on stage does not constitute
a first-rate presentation. I'm with Scorpion and Thomas in feeling
that the material and styles must naturally evolve.
Evolution is not linear. I'm amazed by the answers I receive, when I ask my graduate level Jazz History students if they think that Jazz has consistently
improved with each generation. After interesting discussion, during which I
honor all viewpoints, I lay a little Art Tatum on them.
Evolution is about adaptation to environment, times and circumstances.
However, he who does not understand the mistakes of history is doomed to repeat them. It's a tricky job for today's young musician to know when to stop honoring the past and begin exploring the future. Certainly, most approaches to teaching the subject err heavily on the side of tradition.
Then there are the "Creative Music" programs; also a valid approach, but often more exclusionary and close-minded than the philosophy promises.
Balance is the key. One foot in the past and one in the future usually has you standing right in the present moment.
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 754 Location: Cambridge, MA
Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:33 am Post subject:
tommy t. wrote:
cjl wrote:
Billy B wrote:
It means there are more people on stage than in the audience.
I've played jobs like that! And when you're in a quintet, that's might depressing....
You are in good company, man.
Wednesday night, the day after Ronald Regan was elected President, there was a program at Sandy's Jazz Revival, north of Boston. Piano, drum, and bass were recruited from Berklee to back the big name draw. Four people on stage, two couples in the house plus the owner serving drinks.
Oh yeah, The fourth musician was on trumpet -- Dizzy G. Dizzy said "where were all you people last night?" Appareantly on election night NO ONE came to hear Dizzy play live in the middle of a metropolitan population of 4 million or so including the music students from Berklee, Boston Conservatory, Boston University, NEC, Longy School of Music, etc.
Tommy T.
Not to nitpik, but Sandy's wasn't "in the middle...." it was in Beverly. Pretty much accessible only by car, which most Berklee, NEC, and other students dont' have here in Beantown.....
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 754 Location: Cambridge, MA
Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:37 am Post subject:
Billy B wrote:
JazzmanGIANT wrote:
I think that is part of it. But jazz is a stage-learned art. Yeah aebersolds and basement jamming with co-players helps, but performing and getting that performance feeling is what helps us jazzers learn the art outside of the practice room. And since everyone has to start somewhere, a lot of beginners (who have a lot of passion and interest to perform) do play concerts that are real books head-solo-head form. We all gotta start somewhere. Is the concert any less boring if its a bunch of kids playing like that, but playing their instruments well?
Part of the problem could just be the public's waning interest in music itself. I have many friends who plainly do not listen to music. Most of my friends (other then my combo mates and fellow pro music-hopefuls) do not need music to live their lives fine.
I'm not sure
JMG
The performer should memorize and rehearse the tunes if they want to be taken seriously. Respect for the music and the audience demands the shedding it takes to know the tunes and create interesting renditions. Anything less is unacceptable.
Rehearse? Absolutely. Memorize.....I've never understood this fascination with the memorization of tunes. Some people just have a hard time memorizing things...it doesn't mean that they're any worse musicians or less serious about playing them. Big bands toured with books for as long as I can remember and nobody seemed to mind. This thing about memorization just way overblown. It doesn't indicate any more committment or talent than not memorizing tunes.
Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 1609 Location: Clarksville, Tn
Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:21 am Post subject:
Is jazz dying? Maybe. Depends on whether you are talking about jazz as art or jazz as entertainment. I still believe that with the advent of bebop, jazz became an art form that is too difficult for the masses to appreciate. Most people want to hear something easy to understand with verses and choruses that repeat over and over and a relatively simple chord structure that doesn't require any effort to appreciate. They are "tone bathers", to quote Dr. McGuire.
I'm not saying I don't like jazz. Personally, it is my favorite type of music. My wife, who has heard me playing jazz for years, grew up a country and rock fan and has little appreciation for jazz. _________________ Music is a fire in your belly, fighting to get out. You'd better put a horn in the way before someone gets hurt.
Joined: 13 Aug 2007 Posts: 4313 Location: Ithaca NY
Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:27 am Post subject:
IMO, it doesn't make any difference what you call it, whether it's cool, whether there's a stand with music on it, whether there is a predictable structure (ABA, head, solo, head..), whether it's drawn from the current musical rage or from one 75 years old; what matters is what's coming out of the horn/keyboard/drums/kazoo and whether you as an individual in the audience find it appealing, interesting, stimulating, inspiring, confounding, mystifying - any adjective which suggests you might leave that scene with music in your head, questions on your mind, in other words - your brain gets hooked on some aspect, processes it, and ends up pushing you to find a way to hear more.
There is someone to enjoy every performamce, whether it's kids real-booking it for the first time in public, or some really smart musician tickling the educated musical nerves of the sophisticated listener (Mehldau comes to mind here). What nobody enjoys is pretense, pompousness, performance-is-for-the-performer, and other variations of "attitude".
Audiences will show for performers and performances which garner popularity and create word-of-mouth mystique. How stuff gets promoted, what it costs, and whether it is appealing enough to get folks off their bums and out of the house, all goes to determining if you'll get an audience. It must be a pleasurable experience, perceived as worth the money, and unlike anything on television or the 'net, to be a success.
So how to reach them, how to entice them, and how to hook them - those are the questions we need to answer.
The bebop era was born when performers, many of whom were just plain bored, sought to stimulate themselves and a perceived sophisticated audience with rhythm and changes which were unpredictable, frenetic, and required some real work to both play and listen to. The same boredom made the jazz world fertile ground for drug-addiction. IMO, neither of those developments did any real good for jazz as a genre. Audiences who had flocked to big band swing era performances and could grok the music, were alienated by bebop's listener unfriendliness and a slump in jazz appreciation began which artists like Miles, Brubeck, Getz and Jobim were forced to overcome. They spurred a renewed interest which brought jazz to the White House and Lincoln Center. Innovative, stimulating music which made you want to move to it - that's what helped bring it back in the late 60s and early 70s. And that is what, I think, it will take now.
Recently I attended a latino music concert at Radio City. Most of the audience were on their feet, dancing in place and with their neighbors. There was a high mood, a huge crowd, and I think it was JAZZ too!
veery
Joined: 12 Oct 2003 Posts: 1292 Location: boulder, colorado
Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:41 am Post subject:
Keith,
I believe you are correct. Memorization is not a barometer of talent.
However, with improvising (vs. ensemble) there is another issue. The side of the brain involved in reading is engaged in an intellectual process. In improvising, it operates by "plugging-in" or applying theoretical concepts.
The other side, which is more intuitive, is engaged when playing "by ear".
This side knows the material in a different way, and is more free to react and interact when being creative. It also has more emotional access.
There is a huge difference in the way most people improvise when they
know a tune, versus when they are reading changes. This philosophy is quite unpopular today with students, and is sometimes equivocated right out of the picture. Let me assure you, this is the way Jazz was played before it entered the academy.
I'm now going to do that thing that some of my students hate. I'm going to bring up the way it was "back in the day".
I learned to play in small clubs in the midwest. The older musicians absolutely forbade the use of fake books or charts on the bandstand.
If someone didn't know a tune, they had the option of sitting out for that tune, or of trying to "hear it". When a young player reached for a book,
the whole room would go into an uproar; not just the musicians, but also the audience. The audience knew that reading on the stand was the embarrassing hallmark of the amateur. Amateurism was discouraged.
I understand that times have changed, and that relativism is the new self- esteem. Should everyone know "Bye Bye Blackbird"? OF COURSE!!!!
There is a canon of standards and jazz classics that are expected repertoire of any jazz musician worth his salt. I've been to Cairo, Quito,
Bangkok, Copenhagen.... they all knew "Bye Bye Blackbird" at the jam sessions. This doesn't mean one has to play this kind of repertoire at every gig. Your memorized repertoire is your stock-in-trade, your currency as a musician. If you want to play at the professional level,
you must begin memorizing song from all genres: Jazz(of all eras) Broadway, Pop tunes 1920s-present, Brasilian, Salsa etc. This is what the
big guys do. The guys who don't, are simply not operating at the same level.
What you do is up to you. My students have to memorize 20 tunes per semester. It's the most important requirement I make of them.
Billy B, thank you so much for presuming that having opinions that might differ from yours means that I had completely missed the point. It's so nice to be reminded by some complete stranger what an incompetent buffoon I am.
I had a long, Kirkian reply hung up in posting courtesy of Comcast, so I'll do the short version. Much of my former career depended on very careful gathering and analysis of data, and development of systems to make practical use of the findings. I wanted to know what might have changed since the 2002 survey. Why not do as I did, and read both the 2002 SPPA and the 2008 update, then read the entire SPPA user's guide, with special emphasis placed on section 6?
Enjoy. I'm still curious about a usable definition of what the NEA considers jazz, but that doesn't really matter. I see the local jazz scene remaining quite lively, jazz clubs doing reasonably well considering the economic times, and jazz in a broad array of styles being played and enjoyed. To me, that's reality. And now I'll butt out without even saying those two little words I so long to say to you. _________________ Vintage Olds & Reynolds & Selmers galore
Aubertins, Bessons, Calicchios, Courtois, Wild Things, Marcinkiewicz, Ogilbee Thumpet, DeNicola Puje, Kanstuls....
Joined: 12 Feb 2004 Posts: 6133 Location: Des Moines
Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:25 am Post subject:
Keith,
For years I have been a lead, commercial player. I dabbled in jazz, learned to play changes well enough to get by. I was right there with you in your views.
Recently I took the next step by memorizing, transposing to different keys, studying altered harmonies. The transformation has been amazing. I think Brad is on to something with his explaination of the mental process that occurs when the visual stimulus is removed. _________________ Bill Bergren
Joined: 20 Mar 2008 Posts: 2834 Location: La-la Land (corner of 13th and 13th)
Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:52 am Post subject:
mike ansberry wrote:
Most people want to hear something easy to understand with verses and choruses that repeat over and over and a relatively simple chord structure that doesn't require any effort to appreciate. They are "tone bathers", to quote Dr. McGuire.
Very true... I wan to puke when I hear pop radio... they are songs I have never heard in my life, yet I can predict every chord, and often many of the lyrics. The masses, apparently, like a predictable, catchy tune that they can dance to is sing along with in their car. Maybe it's important to play teasers of such simplicity, and mix a gig or LP up with a little "something for everyone"
But there will always be a portion of the population that craves more than the predictable and cliche. So jazz, of some form (perhaps not what we grew up on) will always exist.
Were the Grateful Dead, or Phish "jazz"?... maybe so, though most of us would instinctively say, "Certainly not!". Perhaps not with the "hip chords", but when I think about the spirit, creativity, improvisation, and some of the structure/format... hmm. Gets into that "what is jazz?" can of worms of course.
Jazz is art, and highly intellectual, and what percentage of the population fit that category? So it is pitching to the edge of the plate, and by definition, going to have a small following. It will always be a small population, and hopefully not an extinct one! I mean that humanity is doomed by the loss of intellectual thinking, not by the loss of jazz.
Totally random thoughts. Sorry. Hopefully any of it was constructive food for thought. _________________ "Stomvi" PhrankenPhlugel w/ Blessing copper bell
1958 Conn 18A cornet
1962 Conn 9A cornet (yes, the Unicorn )
Reynolds Onyx cornet
c. 1955? Besson 10-10 trumpet
1939 Martin Imperial Handcraft “Model 37”
1986 Bach Strad 37 ML
Joined: 01 Mar 2002 Posts: 2599 Location: Wasatch Mountains
Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:00 pm Post subject:
khedger wrote:
Not to nitpik, but Sandy's wasn't "in the middle...." it was in Beverly. Pretty much accessible only by car, which most Berklee, NEC, and other students dont' have here in Beantown.....
keith
Bevery has commuter rail connections to the Boston Subway system. Last train leaves Bevery at 11:20pm, well after the 10:30 end of Dizzy's set. Back then, fare was about 3 bucks -- it's $5.75 now. Never mind students, where was the jazz facutly? How about jazz faculty with a car and a load of interested students?
Is there some legitamacy to the complaint that academic jazz divorced from the "real world" and out of touch with what is going on in the clubs that are further away from campus than a short walk?
(I know, I promised I wouldn't ask a question every somebody posted. So I'm inconsistent. I am large. I contain multitudes.)
(Nitpik: I specifically did not say "middle of Boston," I said "middle of a metropolitan area." The Boston metropolitan area is not centered on the the State House but is skewed somewhat north-westward. It's, of course, neither in Boston or Beverly, each of which is on the coast. In exchange for your observation, I'll move the center north west but add U. Mass, Lowell, which has a full degreee granting music program.)
Tommy T. _________________ Actually, I hate music. I just do this for the money.
Joined: 17 Dec 2007 Posts: 1668 Location: West Medford, MA
Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:49 pm Post subject: maybe there's hope for music, too
Here in Boston the radio station that defined FM rock radio just went off the air. WBCN, 104.1, is no more. Before the pinstriped suits took over and started worrying about market share, back when the DJ's had to have talent and develop an ear for introducing innovation in that genre, that station was a towering figure, a giant from whose shoulders the rest of the country got a view, and grew.
Now you can get satellite stations or on-line streamed options, but you're buying into a national taste-tested product. The regional flavor is gone.
See the parallel to this thread? Perhaps the demise of FM rock radio, as with newspapers, as with what we call Jazz, is only part the suits and the masses. Maybe it is just too easy, even for lovers of a particular genre, to flip a switch and get satisfaction.
The good news? I've read that many small local newspapers are succeeding. Same with local farms. As Tip O'Neil put it, 'all politics is local'. Maybe there's hope for music, too. _________________ kochaavim, csillaagkep, αστερρισμός, konnstelacji, connstellation... ...a.k.a. the 28A!
Other Conns: Victor 5A & 38A, New Wonder & 80A; 'stella 38A; 36A; 'quest 76A...
Joined: 12 Feb 2004 Posts: 6133 Location: Des Moines
Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:02 pm Post subject:
<The good news? I've read that many small local newspapers are succeeding. Same with local farms. As Tip O'Neil put it, 'all politics is local'. Maybe there's hope for music, too.>
This is exactly what I think has to happen. _________________ Bill Bergren
I think that is part of it. But jazz is a stage-learned art. Yeah aebersolds and basement jamming with co-players helps, but performing and getting that performance feeling is what helps us jazzers learn the art outside of the practice room. And since everyone has to start somewhere, a lot of beginners (who have a lot of passion and interest to perform) do play concerts that are real books head-solo-head form. We all gotta start somewhere. Is the concert any less boring if its a bunch of kids playing like that, but playing their instruments well?
Part of the problem could just be the public's waning interest in music itself. I have many friends who plainly do not listen to music. Most of my friends (other then my combo mates and fellow pro music-hopefuls) do not need music to live their lives fine.
I'm not sure
JMG
The performer should memorize and rehearse the tunes if they want to be taken seriously. Respect for the music and the audience demands the shedding it takes to know the tunes and create interesting renditions. Anything less is unacceptable.
I'm not saying they shouldn't, but that is pretty serious to ask for from people who are still learning how to play music. In order to memorize a tune, someone has to be completely comfortable with changes, which many young players are not. Should they not be allowed to perform because they need a reference point? _________________ The thing to judge in any jazz artist is, does the man project and does he have ideas. MilesDavis
"Always be heard - no matter the dynamics."-Mr Adolph Herseth
Yamaha Xeno RGS 2008
Bach Strad 1973
Olds Ambassador 1963
Laskey 65MC
I know some great musicians who are terrible performers.
"Jazz" has been segregated from other types of music for a long time. Jazz is played in jazz clubs, written about in jazz magazines and played on jazz radio stations.
If there were more performers with Rahsaan Roland Kirk's vitality, shows would be more enjoyable. How many times have I read about Clark Terry playing two trumpets at once. People love to watch this stuff. Look how Rahsaan Roland Kirk plays multiple instruments on the same song. He sometimes played instruments with his nose. He could circular breathe. People like a showman. It's more than just about the music. Rock and Roll performers learned this a long time ago.
Joined: 12 Oct 2003 Posts: 1292 Location: boulder, colorado
Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:33 pm Post subject:
Yes and no.
They should be allowed, and even encouraged to perform as much as possible; everywhere: EXCEPT in the venues purporting to present professionals.
This is part of the current problem. If you are an amateur, there are now plenty of clubs that would love to put you on their schedule, especially if it
means they can pay nothing!
Back to the old days: WE USED TO CALL THIS "UNDERCUTTING" AND THE UNION USED TO HARASS THE CLUBS THAT WENT FOR THIS.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum