RANT: Po-faced seriousness and lack of "showbiz" skills in jazz SUCKS

[RichardB]

If you can't "entertain" and make the jazz you are playing approachable and entertaining and communicative, then you don't deserve to be on the freaking stage. I don't care how esoteric and "precious" your "art" is, you are still in good old-fashioned showbiz. It's the lack of these communication skills that has resulted in a contraction in the jazz audience, which was small enough to start with.

[jimfog]

LOL

Just figuring that out, are you, Richard?

You're about 5-6 decades too late to make a dent in THAT particular problem, bud.

[dets1]

and who exactly is in charge of deciding what is approachable?

[slopeshoulder]

I remember in music school (jazz at NEC), students would say "I play for me, forget the audience" in Aesthetics class! Hopefully they mature, but serioius, academic, with a chip on one's shoulder is hardly where to start. Then again, I could do without bleach-toothed smilin' hot tub jazzers! Which is worse?

[splatt]

yeah, huh?
hmmmmmmm.
that probably ain't precisely
what's killing yer jazz,
i betcha by golly wow.
dt / spltrcl

[rwe333]

I dunno, RB...
By way of example: there was a series on Canadian TV (Bravo) that featured various jazz players... One week highlighted two very different approaches - one was a duo lead by guitarist Lorne Lofsky other was a trio lead by John Pizzarelli.
Now, John can mos def play, but it came off as so cornball and contrived - mugging, playing tunes like Girl from Ipanema, bass solos little more than walking bass lines... Course it draws an audience, but sure was backward-looking.
By contrast, Lofsky's set was challenging, searching, forward-looking and intense in spite of the staid presentation.
Must admit, as a player, I learned much more from the latter.
Would the general public enjoy John's set more? Perhaps, but looking in the rear view mirror and playing the obvious ain't moving anything forward. Entertainment over art.
Now, of course, there are those that manage to do both (Herbie, Metheny,...).
Communication/presentation that's honest over contrived wins for me...

[KRosser]

Somebody forgot to tell Coltrane, Bird and Sonny Rollins.

Perhaps, collectively, they're the reason jazz sucks too.

[K-man]

Huh?

[KRosser]

LOL

Just figuring that out, are you, Richard?

You're about 5-6 decades too late to make a dent in THAT particular problem, bud.

Dude - really...it was the powdered wigs that killled Baroque music.

[Ed DeGenaro]

If you can't "entertain" and make the jazz you are playing approachable and entertaining and communicative, then you don't deserve to be on the freaking stage. I don't care how esoteric and "precious" your "art" is, you are still in good old-fashioned showbiz. It's the lack of these communication skills that has resulted in a contraction in the jazz audience, which was small enough to start with.Applies to any gig...

[daddyo]

I dunno, RB...
By way of example: there was a series on Canadian TV (Bravo) that featured various jazz players... One week highlighted two very different approaches - one was a duo lead by guitarist Lorne Lofsky other was a trio lead by John Pizzarelli.
Now, John can mos def play, but it came off as so cornball and contrived - mugging, playing tunes like Girl from Ipanema, bass solos little more than walking bass lines... Course it draws an audience, but sure was backward-looking.
By contrast, Lofsky's set was challenging, searching, forward-looking and intense in spite of the staid presentation.
Must admit, as a player, I learned much more from the latter.
Would the general public enjoy John's set more? Perhaps, but looking in the rear view mirror and playing the obvious ain't moving anything forward. Entertainment over art.
Now, of course, there are those that manage to do both (Herbie, Metheny,...).
Communication/presentation that's honest over contrived wins for me...

And these guys are the greats.

In defense of John Pizzarelli and his "American Songbook" act, I'm much more likely to shell out $100 for me and my date for a known quantity like John than an unknown quantity like Lofsky. But I would buy Lofsky's CD and not buy Pizzarelli's. When I go out, I want to be entertained. I know that goes against the spirit of improvised music and all but the days of going to see a hot, cutting edge jazz band for a reasonable cover are over.

[Ed DeGenaro]

Somebody forgot to tell Coltrane, Bird and Sonny Rollins.

Perhaps, collectively, they're the reason jazz sucks too.
Not that I ever saw Bird, but there seems to be a HIGH level of entertainment there.

[devinb]

On my first trip to NYC I made the mistake of going to The Blue Note instead of Iridium.

[KRosser]

Not that I ever saw Bird, but there seems to be a HIGH level of entertainment there.

Ever see footage of him play? There was no grinnin' and boppin' to the beat. He never really even spoke to the audience. Bird was notoriously apathetic to the criticism that both his behavior and music made audiences a little skittish. He openly criticized Dizzy Gillespie for the 'showbiz shtick'.

Which I don't think was fair - Gillespie was easily as deep a musician as Bird was - he just had a powerful drive to entertain a large non-jazz-specific audience as well and Bird didn't.

[Robertito]

yeah, huh?
hmmmmmmm.
that probably ain't precisely
what's killing yer jazz,
i betcha by golly wow.
dt / spltrcl

I like that tune. Both, in fact.

[KRosser]

I know that goes against the spirit of improvised music and all but the days of going to see a hot, cutting edge jazz band for a reasonable cover are over.

The last time I was in NYC I saw a few great cutting-edge jazz bands for a very reasonable cover in Greenwich Villiage featuring guys like Tim Berne, Uri Caine, Kenny Wollesen, Drew Gress, Ben Monder, etc...

Unless these guys have all passed without me finding out, it's far from over.

[daddyo]

The last time I was in NYC I saw a few great cutting-edge jazz bands for a very reasonable cover in Greenwich Villiage featuring guys like Tim Berne, Uri Caine, Kenny Wollesen, Drew Gress, Ben Monder, etc...

Unless these guys have all passed without me finding out, it's far from over.
Any in Pasadena?

[KRosser]

Any in Pasadena?

Precious little...

But that's hardly because the musicians are too serious and not doing enough to pander to their audience

I think it's the opposite problem, in fact...

But let's face it - those that decry the slow 'death' of the classic jazz sound keep forgetting one thing:

It wasn't meant to live forever. Nothing does.

Compare whatever rock artists are popular today - whether Cradle Of Filth, Radiohead, Mars Volta, U2 - with those popular in the 50's - Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Elvis, Chuck Berry...

Not much resemblence, right?

That's because each new generation redefined rock. So, the further you got from it's origins the less it overtly resembled them (though I gotta say, it tickles me to hear a band of my young students make a fleeting reference to James Burton which survived being filtered from The Stone Temple Pilots from Zeppelin to it's origins on a 50's Ricky Nelson record)

So, consequently, after going through several generations reshaping rock in its own image, rock in 2008 sounds very little like rock in 1958.

This is as it should be, I think

So why whenever I walk into a jazz club am I invariably hearing a jazz vocabulary from 1958?

Maybe jazz is just a little too reverent of its own past, I don't know.

[lhallam]

My blind friend didn't seem to care what they were doing on stage but he sure made comments about the playing.

[Guy from Idaho]

If you can't "entertain" and make the jazz you are playing approachable and entertaining and communicative, then you don't deserve to be on the freaking stage. I don't care how esoteric and "precious" your "art" is, you are still in good old-fashioned showbiz. It's the lack of these communication skills that has resulted in a contraction in the jazz audience, which was small enough to start with.


That's why KennyG roolz over Miles whatsisname :dude


one theory, anyway....

[Swain]

I think people often miss the boat, on both sides of the equation.

If you want to "sell" something, you must get your foot in the door. It's part of the deal. No one is going to search you out. And only the true hard-core fan is going to be receptive to a 100% pure anything.
Maybe more people would listen/experience Jazz, if they got more, smaller doses of it. And maybe if it were wrapped up inside of something more familiar. When you invite people to your house, you clean it up and put out a welcome mat. Make them feel comfortable. You don't tell them, "come over here and learn something". Those deeper, more in-depth conversations happen after you get to know somebody. Laying your philosophies on someone you just met, usually is perceived as either a lecture, or an argument.

As far as who decides what is approachable, that's easy; the audience. Again, you can't tell me what I will feel is approachable.

And as for Art? Entertainment is also a form of Art. And as soon as you play your music to another person, you are looking for a positive response. You are wanting it to be well received. Especially if you are emotionally attached to it. "Pop" music means popular music. And who wouldn't want their music to be popular?
If you truly didn't want to play a popular music, you wouldn't be playing for others. You'd be basically meditating. And who wants to watch or hear someone else do that?

The other side? Well, there's probably a lot of learned people who have said all of this better than I ever could. But, it seems like people have allowed Music to become another aspect of the disposable lifestyle.
Maybe this is because of the supposed "fast pace" of today's lifestyles. Maybe it's because the whole industry has allowed itself to become so, through the desire to make too much money, while cannibalizing itself. I certainly don't know. And apparently, none of the experts do either.

So, there has to be a balance. Art and Commerce. To ignore the commercial aspects of "Music" for the sake of a "Pure Art", is just as disasterous as relegating the importance of "Art" to a lesser (in my opinion) position in our lives.

Okay, I'm getting loopy! Maybe too much coffee. Rant over, thanks for listening.

[MichaelThomas]

If we're talking about stage presence here, sometimes the music just speaks for itself. I've gone to jazz clubs and seen jazz trios with such jaw-dropping music and skills that I don't need to see them bobbing their heads up there with shit-eating grins on their faces. But I guess it's always cool to see incredible skill mixed with showmanship, like Thelonius Monk, that guy would tear the piano a new butthole everytime he played.

If you're playing 4 power chords per song trying to entertain 16 year old girls then you better start jumping up and down like an idiot, it's what I do :)

You guys should see Mute Math, great skills, and an insane live show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVs0gOsGiv4

[Bryan T]

Now here's a stage show:

[/URL][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxaYVVge60o (http://www.thegearpage.net/board/%3Cobject%20width=)

Bryan

[jb70]

If you can't "entertain" and make the jazz you are playing approachable and entertaining and communicative, then you don't deserve to be on the freaking stage. I don't care how esoteric and "precious" your "art" is, you are still in good old-fashioned showbiz. It's the lack of these communication skills that has resulted in a contraction in the jazz audience, which was small enough to start with.

i hear ya and that's why i've started including firebreathing, s&m/bondage, and interpretive dancing into my shows. if the crowd goes wild and demands an encore, i eat an apple, an orange, and a few grapes and shit a fruit salad. they love it!

[Bryan T]

i hear ya and that's why i've started including firebreathing, s&m/bondage, and interpretive dancing into my shows.

No magic?

[jb70]

No magic?

well, during the s&m/bondage portion of the show i make a few coke bottles disappear ;)

[Guitar Dave T]

Somebody forgot to tell Coltrane, Bird and Sonny Rollins.

Perhaps, collectively, they're the reason jazz sucks too.

:agree

Jazz, and jazz influenced music, when played with high levels of both skill and soul, is a show all by itself.

My opinion of what is killing jazz is some of the lighter, yuppy styles that came out of the newage movement. Really pleasing landscape paintings with no subject matter.

[dets1]

Precious little...

But that's hardly because the musicians are too serious and not doing enough to pander to their audience

I think it's the opposite problem, in fact...

But let's face it - those that decry the slow 'death' of the classic jazz sound keep forgetting one thing:

It wasn't meant to live forever. Nothing does.

Compare whatever rock artists are popular today - whether Cradle Of Filth, Radiohead, Mars Volta, U2 - with those popular in the 50's - Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Elvis, Chuck Berry...

Not much resemblence, right?

That's because each new generation redefined rock. So, the further you got from it's origins the less it overtly resembled them (though I gotta say, it tickles me to hear a band of my young students make a fleeting reference to James Burton which survived being filtered from The Stone Temple Pilots from Zeppelin to it's origins on a 50's Ricky Nelson record)

So, consequently, after going through several generations reshaping rock in its own image, rock in 2008 sounds very little like rock in 1958.

This is as it should be, I think

So why whenever I walk into a jazz club am I invariably hearing a jazz vocabulary from 1958?

Maybe jazz is just a little too reverent of its own past, I don't know.
does this mean we're stuck with "smooth" jazz for the next 40 years???:worried:worried:worried:worried:worried:w orried:worried:worried

[Scott Miller]

i hear ya and that's why i've started including firebreathing, s&m/bondage, and interpretive dancing into my shows.

I will suggest these options to my local chamber music orchestra.

[smallbutmighty]

... if the crowd goes wild and demands an encore, i eat an apple, an orange, and a few grapes and shit a fruit salad. they love it!

pffff! Big Deal.

Gallagher was doing that 30 years ago.

ac

[Neill]

why restrict the way in which someone chooses to express themselves? there's room for derek bailey and david lee roth in this world.

[TaronKeim]

The only people that Jazz is dead to are critics, in their various shapes and sizes.

Jazz is music... and trust me, music is ALIVE and WELL!

It's hard to be entertained if the music isn't your thing, so go see something more to your palette; however, for me, I love being challenged - if an artist/group can bring me to the edge of not getting what they're doing and pull me back in, I definately think that is entertainment - even more so if they don't pull me back in but ask enough of me musically that I start questioning it enough that I pull myself back in!

_TJK*

[VintageKnob]

Ok, now you've got me you-tubin' jazz when I'm supposed to be writing code!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNXePvT5H0s&feature=related

- D

[DrSax]

Somebody forgot to tell Coltrane, Bird and Sonny Rollins.

Perhaps, collectively, they're the reason jazz sucks too.

'nuff said.

"Showmanship" doesn't do much for me, unless I'm at a KISS concert. That's a different ballgame, though.

[DrSax]

The last time I was in NYC I saw a few great cutting-edge jazz bands for a very reasonable cover in Greenwich Villiage featuring guys like Tim Berne, Uri Caine, Kenny Wollesen, Drew Gress, Ben Monder, etc...

Unless these guys have all passed without me finding out, it's far from over.

saw Wolleson and Frisell (with others) at the Vanguard and they blew my ears back. no showmanship there at all other than plain awesomeness.

[jgyn]

Keith Jarrett can emote. Frequently, and with great abandon. Don't care for it.

[lfio710]

I think you need to post a You Tube demonstration to better support your point Richard.

[jimfog]

I think folks are kind of making Richard's point...........there are other options than John Pizzarelli vs Lorne Lofsky..........both GREAT, btw. Entertaining doesn't necessarily mean blowing fireballs out of your ass, nor does it have to be "pandering".

Rahsaan Roland Kirk, anyone?

Here's an example I'll never forget.......

Went to a big famous Philly jazz club on a weeknight because some friends wanted to see a local female vocalist with her trio. It was ok.....very competent, but fairly unimaginative, readings of the standard fare. I could have easily sat there and had a few drinks and light conversation, and it would have been a nice, if pricey, night.

Well, 1st thing, the hostess is running from table to table scowling and pointing at the table tents which read "Please respect the artists and refrain from conversation"

Uh....ok.

Well, she starts to sing a ballad....."Funny Valentine" or some such....and it turns out there's a 70-ish couple there for their anniversary, and that tune was their wedding song, so they get up and dance.......away from the stage, very slow, elegant and respectful........it was kind of sweet, really.

Of course, the singer gets a bug up her ass and literally STOPS the song and berates them....."This is a SERIOUS music establishment, not American Bandstand.....please take that mess somewhere else". The poor old folks were thoroughly embarrassed and crushed...........nice.

The worst part about it?

1/2 the audience applauded!!

That might be the last time I danced in public, because our whole table got up and made sure to DANCE our way past the bandstand as we were leaving.

- Jim

[drgonzoguitar]

I think folks are kind of making Richard's point...........there are other options than John Pizzarelli vs Lorne Lofsky..........both GREAT, btw. Entertaining doesn't necessarily mean blowing fireballs out of your ass, nor does it have to be "pandering".

Rahsaan Roland Kirk, anyone?

Here's an example I'll never forget.......

Went to a big famous Philly jazz club on a weeknight because some friends wanted to see a local female vocalist with her trio. It was ok.....very competent, but fairly unimaginative, readings of the standard fare. I could have easily sat there and had a few drinks and light conversation, and it would have been a nice, if pricey, night.

Well, 1st thing, the hostess is running from table to table scowling and pointing at the table tents which read "Please respect the artists and refrain from conversation"

Uh....ok.

Well, she starts to sing a ballad....."Funny Valentine" or some such....and it turns out there's a 70-ish couple there for their anniversary, and that tune was their wedding song, so they get up and dance.......away from the stage, very slow, elegant and respectful........it was kind of sweet, really.

Of course, the singer gets a bug up her ass and literally STOPS the song and berates them....."This is a SERIOUS music establishment, not American Bandstand.....please take that mess somewhere else". The poor old folks were thoroughly embarrassed and crushed...........nice.

The worst part about it?

1/2 the audience applauded!!

That might be the last time I danced in public, because our whole table got up and made sure to DANCE our way past the bandstand as we were leaving.

- Jim

:eek:


Wow....

[Ed DeGenaro]

I think folks are kind of making Richard's point...........there are other options than John Pizzarelli vs Lorne Lofsky..........both GREAT, btw. Entertaining doesn't necessarily mean blowing fireballs out of your ass, nor does it have to be "pandering".

Rahsaan Roland Kirk, anyone?

Here's an example I'll never forget.......

Went to a big famous Philly jazz club on a weeknight because some friends wanted to see a local female vocalist with her trio. It was ok.....very competent, but fairly unimaginative, readings of the standard fare. I could have easily sat there and had a few drinks and light conversation, and it would have been a nice, if pricey, night.

Well, 1st thing, the hostess is running from table to table scowling and pointing at the table tents which read "Please respect the artists and refrain from conversation"

Uh....ok.

Well, she starts to sing a ballad....."Funny Valentine" or some such....and it turns out there's a 70-ish couple there for their anniversary, and that tune was their wedding song, so they get up and dance.......away from the stage, very slow, elegant and respectful........it was kind of sweet, really.

Of course, the singer gets a bug up her ass and literally STOPS the song and berates them....."This is a SERIOUS music establishment, not American Bandstand.....please take that mess somewhere else". The poor old folks were thoroughly embarrassed and crushed...........nice.

The worst part about it?

1/2 the audience applauded!!

That might be the last time I danced in public, because our whole table got up and made sure to DANCE our way past the bandstand as we were leaving.

- Jim
Ya know, I roll with a lot of shit...but making granny unhappy is the quickest way to piss me off....

[joseph]

So the original poster's got a point...
can't believe how clueless that chick singer/band were.
..Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, etc would be rolling in their graves if they heard that story.

[GVDub]

Any in Pasadena?

There's a band playing around the Pasadena/Glendale area called Thelonious Dub that does Monk and Miles tunes with a dub reggae feel. They're a fun time and play some interesting stuff. Not yer highly technical shred-fest jazzin', but I've been digging them (and i go sit in with them every now and again).

[stratzrus]

I remember in music school (jazz at NEC), students would say "I play for me, forget the audience" in Aesthetics class!When I was in music school I was actually told this by one of my professors. Perhaps it's great advice for a nervous freshman, but not so great for the working professional.

My opinion of what is killing jazz is some of the lighter, yuppy styles that came out of the newage movement. Really pleasing landscape paintings with no subject matter.Agreed.

Jazz and classical music have always had somewhat limited audiences and they were rooted in an appreciation of culture and aesthetics...some of it high brow, some of it low brow, but usually based in an awareness of what had historically been played and how the current music related to it.

Once music (and yes, paintings) became just a part of the background in our culture, jazz and classical became less relevant to many. The fact that many of the musicians were quite serious in their approach and demeanor wasn't all that appealing to those who grew up with the fast food approach to culture.

[kimock]

It's the lack of these communication skills that has resulted in a contraction in the jazz audience,

That's correct, but what do expect from folks who's "music theory" is designed to facilitate communication between the musicians instead of between the musicians and the audience?

[Swain]

Saw Bob Dylan a couple of years ago. Great new CD out (Time Out Of Mind), great band, beautiful outdoor gig on a Summer night. Ahhh!

Bob plays his keyboard for most of the show. With the keyboard (and Bob) facing stage-right. No real contact with the audience. In fact, with the whole demeanor of that show, it was kinda hostile feeling.
Bob did play some guitar, too. 2 or 3 tunes, I think. Facing the Band!

Wow, I guess my exorbatent ticket prices were just so I could have the privilege of seeing Bob's @$$ cheek!

So, not only was it my LAST attendance at a Dylan event, it was probably the last time for a few of my younger adult students who had attended on my recommendation.
It was tragic. An incredible songwriter, who could have really touched so many new faces. And there WERE a lot of young faces there. Turned off to the whole thing, by a grouchy old guy!
At least, that's the impression that I got from everyone's remarks.

One of the worst "Music Experiences" I've ever had. So sad.

[Guitar Dave T]

why restrict the way in which someone chooses to express themselves? there's room for derek bailey and david lee roth in this world.

Don't forget Derek Trucks. Amazing player who is about as stoic as they come, and yet sells out most his shows.

[Scott Miller]

I see a lot of live jazz. Most of the performers talk to the audience between songs, some more than others. Some players have an exuberant, physical style of playing, others just sit there, or stand there. It makes no difference to me at all.

Just about everywhere I go, nobody talks during the performance, so no little signs on the table are needed. The only exception is the no-cover, background-music combos you see in restaurants now and then, where the venue assumes that people are there to eat and talk, as opposed to being there to hear someone play. I can see why a venue would use the little "shut up" signs.

Anyway, I think that if you expect jazz musicians to behave like rock musicians, you will probably be disappointed.

[Guitar Dave T]

I think folks are kind of making Richard's point...........there are other options than John Pizzarelli vs Lorne Lofsky..........both GREAT, btw. Entertaining doesn't necessarily mean blowing fireballs out of your ass, nor does it have to be "pandering".

Rahsaan Roland Kirk, anyone?

Here's an example I'll never forget.......

Went to a big famous Philly jazz club on a weeknight because some friends wanted to see a local female vocalist with her trio. It was ok.....very competent, but fairly unimaginative, readings of the standard fare. I could have easily sat there and had a few drinks and light conversation, and it would have been a nice, if pricey, night.

Well, 1st thing, the hostess is running from table to table scowling and pointing at the table tents which read "Please respect the artists and refrain from conversation"

Uh....ok.

Well, she starts to sing a ballad....."Funny Valentine" or some such....and it turns out there's a 70-ish couple there for their anniversary, and that tune was their wedding song, so they get up and dance.......away from the stage, very slow, elegant and respectful........it was kind of sweet, really.

Of course, the singer gets a bug up her ass and literally STOPS the song and berates them....."This is a SERIOUS music establishment, not American Bandstand.....please take that mess somewhere else". The poor old folks were thoroughly embarrassed and crushed...........nice.

The worst part about it?

1/2 the audience applauded!!

That might be the last time I danced in public, because our whole table got up and made sure to DANCE our way past the bandstand as we were leaving.

- Jim

Yea, Jim; You do a good job of illustrating the other end of the spectrum, from both the performer's and audience's twisted point of view.

Michael Martin Murphy, while not a jazz player, still took himself waaay too seriously in my book, and stopped a bar show I attended once because people were talking. Man, you are a musician and entertainer, you're not a college professor giving a friggin' lecture. If you can earn and command respect, then people will listen. If not, you need to either complain to your agent about getting you into better venues, or seriously work on your people skills.

And as far as crowds behaving badly goes, growing up attending fusion concerts in the 70's with more than my fair share of North Texas State jazz students in the audience was too much to stomach at times.

Little shits actually boo'd Eric Johnson's opening act once in Dallas because the guitarists wasn't up to the 'Eric standard'. A friend of mine who knew Eric well said the experience mortified him, and caused him to book tours 'around' Dallas for a few years afterwards.

[splatt]

it's a simultaneously vague & (broadly) slippery slope, here,
with lotsa cheap generalizations that don't seem to encompass
the very real possibilities of
the multitude of truly positive social & interior effect that different "types" of music
--- even different "types" of "jazz" ---
might offer
those of willing mind, open ear, & ready heart.

careful where we tread, yo, no?
i do always hate to see folks breaking the toes of they right foots
with they left heels.....
too sad for me.
¿what?
dt / spltrcl

[kimock]

it's a simultaneously vague & (broadly) slippery slope, here,
with lotsa cheap generalizations that don't seem to encompass
the very real possibilities of
the multitude of truly positive social & interior effect that different "types" of music
--- even different "types" of "jazz" ---
might offer
those of willing mind, open ear, & ready heart.


dt / spltrcl

If modern musicians had attempted to justify their practices, as did the Ancients, they would have put an end to prejudices unfavorable to them; this might even have led them to give up those prejudices with which they themselves are still obsessed and of which they have great difficulty ridding themselves. Experience is too kind to them. It seduces them, so to speak, making them neglect to study the beauties which it enables them to discover daily. Their knowledge, then, is theirs alone; they do not have the gift of communicating it. Because they do not percieve this at all, they are often more astonished that others do not understand them than they are at their own inability to make themselves understood.

Anyway, that's what Rameau said in his preface to Treatise on Harmony, 1722 ish. That sure seems to echo the sentiment of the OP at least as far as the communication aspect of his point was concerned, relative to the usual whining of the Jazz Police and their incredible shrinking audience.

So it's indeed a slippery slope, one on which we have been poised for all of history. Some prefer the view from the top; some, the view from the edge.

Well met.

[KRosser]

Saw Bob Dylan a couple of years ago. Great new CD out (Time Out Of Mind), great band, beautiful outdoor gig on a Summer night. Ahhh!

Bob plays his keyboard for most of the show. With the keyboard (and Bob) facing stage-right. No real contact with the audience. In fact, with the whole demeanor of that show, it was kinda hostile feeling.
Bob did play some guitar, too. 2 or 3 tunes, I think. Facing the Band!

Wow, I guess my exorbatent ticket prices were just so I could have the privilege of seeing Bob's @$$ cheek!

So, not only was it my LAST attendance at a Dylan event, it was probably the last time for a few of my younger adult students who had attended on my recommendation.
It was tragic. An incredible songwriter, who could have really touched so many new faces. And there WERE a lot of young faces there. Turned off to the whole thing, by a grouchy old guy!
At least, that's the impression that I got from everyone's remarks.

One of the worst "Music Experiences" I've ever had. So sad.

When a critic asked Miles Davis why he played with his back to the audience and never spoke to them on the mic he said that was the only way he could get into his zone, and he respected that's what most were there to see - Miles getting into his zone.

Dylan's been infuriating audiences with agendas for four decades now; I think he'll be fine. His idiosyncratic performance style is well known by now...people come with a certain expectation regarding the 'Dylan mystique' by this point.

[JazzHessian]

Somebody forgot to tell Coltrane, Bird and Sonny Rollins.

My thoughts exactly.

[KRosser]

Anyway, that's what Rameau said in his preface to Treatise on Harmony, 1722 ish. That sure seems to echo the sentiment of the OP at least as far as the communication aspect of his point was concerned, relative to the usual whining of the Jazz Police and their incredible shrinking audience.


I don't think a meaningful conclusion can be drawn between lack of jazz showmanship and its shrinking audience; if anything the post-Marsalis camp has put a premium on showmanship and bridging the audience gap.

I don't think audiences 'back in the day' understood Coltrane or Rollins any more than audiences do now. I don't think one needs to understand Indian music or serialism to be engaged by a performance of either.

Some audience members will be put off by a performance style of one kind or another - when I last saw Jeff Beck, Beth Hart's 'rock star' histrionics irritated me to no end - this can't be avoided. It didn't really detract much from the overall show for me because Beck was so on.

There was a lengthy thread here a while back about how 'rude and arrogant' Bill Frisell was for playing with his back to the audience. I've been a part of those audiences for 20 years and never saw anyone storm out. Plus, it assumes Bill has any other way he can perform.

The long road to performer and audience finding each other will include some mis-fires.

Same as it ever was.

[JazzHessian]

I just really can't believe there are still people who complain about music being "too arty".

[kimock]

I just really can't believe there are still people who complain about music being "too arty".

That's the problem right there, people don't complain about music being too arty or whatever, they just don't show up at the gig or purchase product.
It's the musicians and music critics doing the complaining.

Look again at this quote from 1722:

"Their knowledge, then, is theirs alone; they do not have the gift of communicating it. Because they do not percieve this at all, they are often more astonished that others do not understand them than they are at their own inability to make themselves understood."

That's Jazz. . .

Trust me man, audiences are not complaining about people complaining about art, WE ARE.

The audience is blameless, the listener, innocent.
The musicians, you and I, are only guilty of our unquestioning belief that music is a language, and as such our thoughts about "what it is" are somehow transmitted through sound.
As if the sounds we produce are some kind of secret code that only the truly hip will understand.

[JazzHessian]

That's the problem right there, people don't complain about music being too arty or whatever, they just don't show up at the gig or purchase product.
It's the musicians and music critics doing the complaining.

Look again at this quote from 1722:

"Their knowledge, then, is theirs alone; they do not have the gift of communicating it. Because they do not percieve this at all, they are often more astonished that others do not understand them than they are at their own inability to make themselves understood."

That's Jazz. . .

Trust me man, audiences are not complaining about people complaining about art, WE ARE.

The audience is blameless, the listener, innocent.
The musicians, you and I, are only guilty of our unquestioning belief that music is a language, and as such our thoughts about "what it is" are somehow transmitted through sound.
As if the sounds we produce are some kind of secret code that only the truly hip will understand.

I was talking about musicians.

So if no one tries to push the boundaries of music beyond what is generally "acceptable" or "understandable" to an audience, where will music go?

Music is not necessarily about "understanding" by any stretch. It is an art form, and as an art form, it is about the expression of one's self in any way one sees fit. The primary concern for any true musician should never, ever be "what will people think of me", but instead "what can I do to express myself in a way that is unique to me?".

This is how music evolves. This allows music the room to move forward, cover new ground, change.

Furthermore, I don't see the current jazz scene as evidence that jazz has become detached from its audience. Instead, jazz has gone down the road of hopelessly trying to pander to gain listeners, with dumbed down structures, more conventionally "pleasant" melodies, and by repeating the ideas that people have already become familiar with. If one can make an argument for anything, it's that much of the jazz music out there currently has lost the ethic that made jazz what it was - a new, living type of music unrestrained by convention, with emphasis on the importance of developing one's own voice. It was with this ethic that jazz prospered for years.

[TNJ]

Somebody forgot to tell Coltrane, Bird and Sonny Rollins.

Perhaps, collectively, they're the reason jazz sucks too.

You forgot Miles.
:)

S.
j

[Ed DeGenaro]

That's the problem right there, people don't complain about music being too arty or whatever, they just don't show up at the gig or purchase product.
It's the musicians and music critics doing the complaining.

Look again at this quote from 1722:

"Their knowledge, then, is theirs alone; they do not have the gift of communicating it. Because they do not percieve this at all, they are often more astonished that others do not understand them than they are at their own inability to make themselves understood."

That's Jazz. . .

Trust me man, audiences are not complaining about people complaining about art, WE ARE.

The audience is blameless, the listener, innocent.
The musicians, you and I, are only guilty of our unquestioning belief that music is a language, and as such our thoughts about "what it is" are somehow transmitted through sound.
As if the sounds we produce are some kind of secret code that only the truly hip will understand.
I love you man! 'nuff said. :-)

[Ed DeGenaro]

I was talking about musicians.

So if no one tries to push the boundaries of music beyond what is generally "acceptable" or "understandable" to an audience, where will music go?

Music is not necessarily about "understanding" by any stretch. It is an art form, and as an art form, it is about the expression of one's self in any way one sees fit. The primary concern for any true musician should never, ever be "what will people think of me", but instead "what can I do to express myself in a way that is unique to me?".

This is how music evolves. This allows music the room to move forward, cover new ground, change.

Furthermore, I don't see the current jazz scene as evidence that jazz has become detached from its audience. Instead, jazz has gone down the road of hopelessly trying to pander to gain listeners, with dumbed down structures, more conventionally "pleasant" melodies, and by repeating the ideas that people have already become familiar with. If one can make an argument for anything, it's that much of the jazz music out there currently has lost the ethic that made jazz what it was - a new, living type of music unrestrained by convention, with emphasis on the importance of developing one's own voice. It was with this ethic that jazz prospered for years.
Pushing boundaries in a rather conservative genre is not somthing hat's getting you very far. "What he doen't sound like the nteenth version of that Parker lick, stone him! He isn't JAZZ!!! Tar and feather him!"

How much music do you purchase that really is Art as opposed to lets call it craft?
In Germany -land of bureaucracy -they have a subdivision for professional musicians-E-Musician and U-Musician. E stands for ernsthaft, the German word for serious, as in Classical musicians fall into that category...ONLY.
U, for Unterhaltung, the German word for Entertainment, that's the category if you're not a Classical musician.

Go back take a look at Jaz before the sax went the way of he dinosaur (which btw I believe is where the guitar is headed), there where actually folks dancing an having a good time, go back to juke joints and the Blues...same thing. When music becomes "relevant" and art is when "common folks" usually tune out. So, yes...without entertainment...by which I don't necessarily migging you got nothing.

You heard the term "playing the house" for dumming down lines so the audience can get into it. Kenny G rules at playing the house, the mother****er can play, all there is to it. What he choses to do with it is between him and his band account.

I severly limit my Fusion gigs these days because they usually end up costin me money, and I might as well "express' myself on CD.
But when I play with th Country band I stick whole tone licks i there, have a blast and I get away with it, with the audience loving it bcause I also am willing to play the house.

[Ed DeGenaro]

You forgot Miles.
:)

S.
j
How does that make any sense...we're talking about some one following a path beating into the ground harder than 2 dollar hooker on ski ro
Miles. Trane, Parker..all caused paradigm shifts. "Mr. Another Bebop Player 30 years Late" at best can hope to hold his audiece by entertaining them.
Have you seen Stern within the last few years...tell me he's not playing to the house.

[lhallam]

I was at a workshop ca 1977 hosted by Pharoah Sanders and all he did the entire time was to tell the audience that there was no money in jazz.

The jazz audience dwindled from the big band dancers when be-bop came about, so this is nothing new. I'd guess that the majority of listeners were pseudo-intellectual whites, beatniks or musicians.

There was a resurgence in the 70's (despite what Wynton says) with Weather Report,Mahavishnu Orchestra, Billy Cobham, Miles, Return To Forever & arguably Zappa paving the way.

Aside from Zappa and Jaco, none of these guys or the older guys who got the new audience were into choreography or any stage antics.

While some kind of "showmanship" may attract a broader audience I don't think that's the problem.

Jazz needs something new & exciting along the lines of Jaco for an albeit brief resurgence to run it's cycle.

[kimock]

I was talking about musicians.

Sorry, when you said "people" I thought you meant people. LOL

[JazzHessian]

Pushing boundaries in a rather conservative genre is not somthing hat's getting you very far. "What he doen't sound like the nteenth version of that Parker lick, stone him! He isn't JAZZ!!! Tar and feather him!"

Strawman argument + putting words in my mouth.

For a moment, disregard jazz as a genre, and think of the ethic that musicians like Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Albert Ayler, and countless others brought to the table. Freedom from convention, developing a unique voice through constant reinvention. This ethic is responsible for the evolution of music as a whole.

Music doesn't stop where you draw the genre lines. The strides that Davis, Trane et al made in what we now refer to as "jazz" laid the groundwork for many other types of music - rock 'n roll included.

So why would we discourage this kind of thinking? Why do we seek to limit ourselves to a comfort zone, when so much more can be done?


How much music do you purchase that really is Art as opposed to lets call it craft?
In Germany -land of bureaucracy -they have a subdivision for professional musicians-E-Musician and U-Musician. E stands for ernsthaft, the German word for serious, as in Classical musicians fall into that category...ONLY.
U, for Unterhaltung, the German word for Entertainment, that's the category if you're not a Classical musician.

Go back take a look at Jaz before the sax went the way of he dinosaur (which btw I believe is where the guitar is headed), there where actually folks dancing an having a good time, go back to juke joints and the Blues...same thing. When music becomes "relevant" and art is when "common folks" usually tune out. So, yes...without entertainment...by which I don't necessarily migging you got nothing.

You heard the term "playing the house" for dumming down lines so the audience can get into it. Kenny G rules at playing the house, the mother****er can play, all there is to it. What he choses to do with it is between him and his band account.

I severly limit my Fusion gigs these days because they usually end up costin me money, and I might as well "express' myself on CD.
But when I play with th Country band I stick whole tone licks i there, have a blast and I get away with it, with the audience loving it bcause I also am willing to play the house.

Who says "art" and "entertainment" are mutually exclusive? How do you even define "entertainment"? You act as though music can serve only one purpose to one audience.

In truth, there is an audience for every type of music - and if an artist wishes to capitalize on this, it is up to them to find their audience. Knowing who your listener is, where they are, and what keeps them coming back is absolutely essential for success no matter what the music might sound like. Even the most conventional and purely entertaining of bands struggle with this (arguably, it's even harder for bands/artists with a more conventional sound to succeed, because there's no niche to exploit). Likewise, not everyone has the same definition of success, nor does every artist take the same road to get there. Not all of us are going to be selling out stadiums, but that's fine because not all of us want or need to!

Appealing to the lowest common denominator is not exactly a surefire way to get youself more record sales, and even if it does, who says more record sales are going to do you any good? I'd rather find an active listener who I know enjoys my music because of its content. Those are the listeners who are going to actually support my musical endeavors by coming to shows, recommending my music to people with similar tastes, and forming an attachment to my particular artistic voice - not just throw me 99 cents for an iTunes sale (98.2 cents of which I won't even see).

The bottom line is that even if a particular piece of music's value isn't purely "entertainment", that doesn't mean it isn't equally valuable in a completely different way. I don't think it's particularly helpful to music as a whole to disregard those who approach music in an unconventional way simply because it might not make people want to dance.

[JazzHessian]

Go back take a look at Jaz before the sax went the way of he dinosaur (which btw I believe is where the guitar is headed)

I had to point this out, too, because I really don't get the common preoccupation with how music is made. I feel like that's a really incomplete view of music, and sells it short of its true worth. It doesn't matter whether your music was made on a sax, a guitar, or a computer - as long as you express it in your own voice with sincerity and passion, it's artistically viable.

In addition, sax still is, and always will be used. Same with the guitar. As long as there are musicians whose purpose is not solely to please a crowd, there will be musicians who will use whatever instrument is necessary to express their vision.

[Greggy]

i hear ya and that's why i've started including firebreathing, s&m/bondage, and interpretive dancing into my shows. if the crowd goes wild and demands an encore, i eat an apple, an orange, and a few grapes and shit a fruit salad. they love it!

Tour schedule please!

[isfahani]

i hear ya and that's why i've started including firebreathing, s&m/bondage, and interpretive dancing into my shows. if the crowd goes wild and demands an encore, i eat an apple, an orange, and a few grapes and shit a fruit salad. they love it!

Ummmmm are djembes and dreadlocks included? If so, I'll have to pass.

Here's my deal, if I want entertainment I'll go see KISS or Van Halen.

It's gotten harder around here, but occasionally I like to see players (whatever the genre) testify when they play... :puh

[Ed DeGenaro]

I had to point this out, too, because I really don't get the common preoccupation with how music is made. I feel like that's a really incomplete view of music, and sells it short of its true worth. It doesn't matter whether your music was made on a sax, a guitar, or a computer - as long as you express it in your own voice with sincerity and passion, it's artistically viable.

In addition, sax still is, and always will be used. Same with the guitar. As long as there are musicians whose purpose is not solely to please a crowd, there will be musicians who will use whatever instrument is necessary to express their vision.
It was a time reference...as in when sax was popular. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Ed DeGenaro]

Strawman argument + putting words in my mouth.

For a moment, disregard jazz as a genre, and think of the ethic that musicians like Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Albert Ayler, and countless others brought to the table. Freedom from convention, developing a unique voice through constant reinvention. This ethic is responsible for the evolution of music as a whole.

Music doesn't stop where you draw the genre lines. The strides that Davis, Trane et al made in what we now refer to as "jazz" laid the groundwork for many other types of music - rock 'n roll included.

So why would we discourage this kind of thinking? Why do we seek to limit ourselves to a comfort zone, when so much more can be done?



Who says "art" and "entertainment" are mutually exclusive? How do you even define "entertainment"? You act as though music can serve only one purpose to one audience.

In truth, there is an audience for every type of music - and if an artist wishes to capitalize on this, it is up to them to find their audience. Knowing who your listener is, where they are, and what keeps them coming back is absolutely essential for success no matter what the music might sound like. Even the most conventional and purely entertaining of bands struggle with this (arguably, it's even harder for bands/artists with a more conventional sound to succeed, because there's no niche to exploit). Likewise, not everyone has the same definition of success, nor does every artist take the same road to get there. Not all of us are going to be selling out stadiums, but that's fine because not all of us want or need to!

Appealing to the lowest common denominator is not exactly a surefire way to get youself more record sales, and even if it does, who says more record sales are going to do you any good? I'd rather find an active listener who I know enjoys my music because of its content. Those are the listeners who are going to actually support my musical endeavors by coming to shows, recommending my music to people with similar tastes, and forming an attachment to my particular artistic voice - not just throw me 99 cents for an iTunes sale (98.2 cents of which I won't even see).

The bottom line is that even if a particular piece of music's value isn't purely "entertainment", that doesn't mean it isn't equally valuable in a completely different way. I don't think it's particularly helpful to music as a whole to disregard those who approach music in an unconventional way simply because it might not make people want to dance.
Sigh...I'm no the one drawing boundary lines in the sand, the Jazz Police is. If it weren' for the traditionalists vehemently being opposed to anything that isn't Wynton approved that Jazz would be still an vibrant Artform but that really is not the point. Talk abou putting wods into my mouth.

As for the tyoe of listeners...I don't care...I'll take any one that wants to listen to it. Whether they use my stuff for innocous background drizzle, or whher they find somethign profond and deep in it matters little.
What matters is that I get paid and enjoy myself.


This quoye from you...
In truth, there is an audience for every type of music - and if an artist wishes to capitalize on this, it is up to them to find their audience. Knowing who your listener is, where they are, and what keeps them coming back is absolutely essential for success no matter what the music might sound like.
I totally agree with and pretty much spells out what I'm saying, so I'm not even sure what we're argue over here.

[teleharmonium]

I know I'm not your typical music consumer. That said, as far as I'm concerned you can keep the showmanship. I don't mind it and will enjoy that aspect of it if it is weird and fun like Beefheart or the Residents, but it alone would never motivate me to leave the house or spend a nickel. It's about the music. Most of my favorites are dead guys who I've never seen so much as a video of.

Most showmanship strikes me as insincere contrived BS (because that's what it is). When a badass is on stage with an instrument, that's more than enough show for me.
I'll never understand why anybody would give a shit about that "Hello (your town here) !!! Are you all having a good time ?" stuff.

[Ed DeGenaro]

I know I'm not your typical music consumer. That said, as far as I'm concerned you can keep the showmanship. I don't mind it and will enjoy that aspect of it if it is weird and fun like Beefheart or the Residents, but it alone would never motivate me to leave the house or spend a nickel. It's about the music. Most of my favorites are dead guys who I've never seen so much as a video of.

Most showmanship strikes me as insincere contrived BS (because that's what it is). When a badass is on stage with an instrument, that's more than enough show for me.
I'll never understand why anybody would give a shit about that "Hello (your town here) !!! Are you all having a good time ?" stuff.

Funnily enough playing for musicians as your main audience means one thing...best have a secondary source on income.

[Bassomatic]

The audience is blameless, the listener, innocent.

An idealized, and generous, POV. What about the negative traits we all (musicains an *people* alike) manifest so handily and regularly? What if a particular listener is not some Blake-ian innocent but rather lazy, judgmental, narrow-minded, and impatient? Should a conscientious muso go out of his or her way to meet thsat listener in their comfort zone? Or even half way? What will that musician be giving up in the process? i Will new directions be pursued with any regularity given such aesthetic goals?

Should an audience be condescended to by a player who thinks he knows what's good for them, as a distinct entity from what might be good for him in that moment? Can the two overlap, and ought they?

Not necesasarily drawing conclusions, here, but thinking out loud.

Personally, I'm happy to substitute honest self expression for the "communication" I hear so many musos talk about. I also believe that such work will resonate with at least some folks and, G-d willing, find its proper audience. Imo, Music is often not literal or programmatic enough to "communicate" with any degree of coherence/consistency (especially the instrumental forms). Thankfully, despite its linguistic limitations, good music can evoke a rich variety of emotional and intellectual responses from its many different listeners.

[winstabull]

[quote=JazzHessian;4909758]
For a moment, disregard jazz as a genre, and think of the ethic that musicians like Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Albert Ayler, and countless others brought to the table. Freedom from convention, developing a unique voice through constant reinvention. This ethic is responsible for the evolution of music as a whole.
[quote]

I'll start by simply stating that I am not a music professional. I am part of the audience that happens to love playing and reading about the guitar.

I see the spirit of jazz alive and well in the jamband community. Maybe that makes me a jazz simpleton because I don't know real jazz... Maybe I am flat out wrong by some text book definition but there are fans of music that pushes boundries.

[rwe333]

An idealized, and generous, POV. What about the negative traits we all (musicains an *people* alike) manifest so handily and regularly? What if a particular listener is not some Blake-ian innocent but rather lazy, judgmental, narrow-minded, and impatient? Should a conscientious muso go out of his or her way to meet thsat listener in their comfort zone? Or even half way? What will that musician be giving up in the process? i Will new directions be pursued with any regularity given such aesthetic goals?

Should an audience be condescended to by a player who thinks he knows what's good for them, as a distinct entity from what might be good for him in that moment? Can the two overlap, and ought they?

Not necesasarily drawing conclusions, here, but thinking out loud.

Personally, I'm happy to substitute honest self expression for the "communication" I hear so many musos talk about. I also believe that such work will resonate with at least some folks and, G-d willing, find its proper audience. Imo, Music is often not literal or programmatic enough to "communicate" with any degree of coherence/consistency (especially the instrumental forms). Thankfully, despite its linguistic limitations, good music can evoke a rich variety of emotional and intellectual responses from its many different listeners.

Nice...

[rwe333]

Funnily enough playing for musicians as your main audience means one thing...best have a secondary source on income.

While there's truth to this generalization, it's not always the case...

[Bassomatic]

Sigh...I'm no the one drawing boundary lines in the sand, the Jazz Police is.

Yeah, but no one cool ever pays them no nevermind.:YinYang

[Bassomatic]

While there's truth to this generalization, it's not always the case...

It's definitely better in Canadia, in this regard.

[Ed DeGenaro]

While there's truth to this generalization, it's not always the case...
Really? When isn't is the case? When you run up a bill with the record company? Or if you happen to be independently wealthy just finance it yourself, or if you aren't go in the hole?
Or if you're in Sweden or Canada where you actually may be able to get government funding?
I know you seen attendance numbers for shows and sales numbers for CDs?

I talked with Kaiser numerous times about doing another Yo Miles project and the short answer is really simple...there's no money for it/in it.
My Fusion hang is financed by my Country hang.
Go talk to the guys that are sold on Abstract Logix...how many of them don't work like dogs to make ends meet.
I expect the pie eyed ideologic world view from guys in their 20s, but Wayne you've been around the block a few times...you know better.

[Ed DeGenaro]

[quote=JazzHessian;4909758]
For a moment, disregard jazz as a genre, and think of the ethic that musicians like Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Albert Ayler, and countless others brought to the table. Freedom from convention, developing a unique voice through constant reinvention. This ethic is responsible for the evolution of music as a whole.
[quote]

I'll start by simply stating that I am not a music professional. I am part of the audience that happens to love playing and reading about the guitar.

I see the spirit of jazz alive and well in the jamband community. Maybe that makes me a jazz simpleton because I don't know real jazz... Maybe I am flat out wrong by some text book definition but there are fans of music that pushes boundries.
Indeed! But I' hazard a guess that the Jazzholes aren't fond of them "hippie freak"! :)

[Ed DeGenaro]

Yeah, but no one cool ever pays them no nevermind.:YinYang
To the Jazzholes? You and I certainly don't. :)

[mike walker]

'I say sarah, that chap over there seems to be expressing himself with scant regard for his audience!! I'm leaving at once!!'
'Oh don't Archie, remember when we didn't..(looks down to the ground) ''play by the book''.'
'That was before the boom of light entertainment darling, and i'm damned if i'm going anywhere near a real grimace again. That fellow actually plays just for the love of music, and i find it all too self serving and a tad embarrassing'.
'But Archie, look, look at his pained expression!!!!'
'Utter Balderdash What!!??!!'
'He's lost in the moment'
'yes and he can bloody well stay there, (grabbing her arm) you're coming with me,
We already missed 'Parody of a sad slob the musical on ice 3000' just to see someone
lay bare on the alter of a deep fried ego!!"
'But....'

Mike

[Mondoslug]

It depends....are they using an Axe FX?

[Ed DeGenaro]

It depends....are they using an Axe FX?
Nope...Naylor.

[Mondoslug]

serious lack of "showbiz" skills then.

[rwe333]

I expect the pie eyed ideologic world view from guys in their 20s, but Wayne you've been around the block a few times...you know better.

Huh? No idealism here...
You're telling me that every muso you respect isn't able to make a living gigging non-commercial music?
As I noted, your point has legs, but it's no absolute. Little doubt it can be a tough life, but we can all name talented mofos who've bucked the trend. Just trying to respect them here...

[JazzHessian]

Personally, I'm happy to substitute honest self expression for the "communication" I hear so many musos talk about. I also believe that such work will resonate with at least some folks and, G-d willing, find its proper audience. Imo, Music is often not literal or programmatic enough to "communicate" with any degree of coherence/consistency (especially the instrumental forms). Thankfully, despite its linguistic limitations, good music can evoke a rich variety of emotional and intellectual responses from its many different listeners.

Bam.

[mike walker]

Bassomatic,

Thanks for a beautiful post.

[JazzHessian]

To the Jazzholes? You and I certainly don't. :)

Who are these people you keep talking about? Where are they? They're not in this thread, and they're not really pertinent to the conversation in the first place.

You know, with all due respect, it seems like you might be venting your own frustrations by making sweeping generalizations about music. Just because you didn't meet your definition of success by expressing yourself in whatever way you wanted doesn't mean that there aren't other musicians out there doing that right now.

Yes, it's hard work being an artist who might be "outside the box". But there are plenty of people out there who want something more than entertainment from their music, and there are a lot of new ways to reach them. And in the end, I think the idea of bringing something new and unique to the table is well-worth the work, because that's what keeps music moving forward.

You could probably try to discredit me by saying I'm a "20-something idealist" but it's my generation that's redefining the business model for the music industry.

[jimfog]

........there are plenty of people out there who want something more than entertainment from their music........

That might be THE absolute best, funniest comment I've ever read here, bar none.

Thank you for my new favorite quote!

[JazzHessian]

That might be THE absolute best, funniest comment I've ever read here, bar none.

Thank you for my new favorite quote!

You don't agree? Elaborate, please.

[Ed DeGenaro]

Who are these people you keep talking about? Where are they? They're not in this thread, and they're not really pertinent to the conversation in the first place.

You know, with all due respect, it seems like you might be venting your own frustrations by making sweeping generalizations about music. Just because you didn't meet your definition of success by expressing yourself in whatever way you wanted doesn't mean that there aren't other musicians out there doing that right now.

Yes, it's hard work being an artist who might be "outside the box". But there are plenty of people out there who want something more than entertainment from their music, and there are a lot of new ways to reach them. And in the end, I think the idea of bringing something new and unique to the table is well-worth the work, because that's what keeps music moving forward.

You could probably try to discredit me by saying I'm a "20-something idealist" but it's my generation that's redefining the business model for the music industry.
Please don't psucho analyze me. I actually exceeded what I expected from success. So, there is no venting any frustration. I'm a freakin' realist, that's all there is to it.
I decided to do what I wanted to do musically I had 2 choices find some on to pay for it, or find a way to pay fo it. so I did. When I see theoretical discussions of what musicians should or shouldn't do, and the term ART comes up my eyes glaze over.
And when I get lessons from some one that presumably doesn't feed a family with his playing on what it means to be "outside the box" I get a good chuckle from that. I'm likely more outside any box than you can even imagine...

[Ed DeGenaro]

You don't agree? Elaborate, please.
Not that yoiu asked me, but playing music isn't the cure for cancer.

[Ed DeGenaro]

Huh? No idealism here...
You're telling me that every muso you respect isn't able to make a living gigging non-commercial music?
As I noted, your point has legs, but it's no absolute. Little doubt it can be a tough life, but we can all name talented mofos who've bucked the trend. Just trying to respect them here...
Bucked the trend at tremendous cost.
But that isn't the point. The point is that the audiences getting smaller and smaller, I don't even know why we're discussing this. Has nothing to do with giving respect to any one.

Tell you what this year neither mine nor Fuze's band played the Fretless thing in NYC, the turn out was so bad the club cancelled he second night. No there is something that is in dire need of the Canadian model. Their heart is in the right place, but that goes to show you how much any "movement" goes without marquee approach. I keep telling them to include stuff that isn't fretless only so they can draw some main stream audience. But no...what do I know.

[JazzHessian]

Please don't psucho analyze me. I actually exceeded what I expected from success. So, there is no venting any frustration. I'm a freakin' realist, that's all there is to it.
I decided to do what I wanted to do musically I had 2 choices find some on to pay for it, or find a way to pay fo it. so I did. When I see theoretical discussions of what musicians should or shouldn't do, and the term ART comes up my eyes glaze over.
And when I get lessons from some one that presumably doesn't feed a family with his playing on what it means to be "outside the box" I get a good chuckle from that. I'm likely more outside any box than you can even imagine...

I'm not even sure what your point is here, except maybe to be condescending. It really doesn't matter to me how "outside the box" you are, nor does it matter to me how much money you've made. If you don't care about the artistic elements of music, then that's perfectly alright - I'm sure you get by doing whatever it is you do. My point is, there are people out there whose primary concern is artistic expression and they still make a living. Of course it's not as common - but why is that a reason to belittle the accomplishments of musicians who keep music going in a positive direction, instead of letting it go stagnate by treating it like any other commodity?

[Ed DeGenaro]

I'm not even sure what your point is here, except maybe to be condescending. It really doesn't matter to me how "outside the box" you are, nor does it matter to me how much money you've made. If you don't care about the artistic elements of music, then that's perfectly alright - I'm sure you get by doing whatever it is you do. My point is, there are people out there whose primary concern is artistic expression and they still make a living. Of course it's not as common - but why is that a reason to belittle the accomplishments of musicians who keep music going in a positive direction, instead of letting it go stagnate by treating it like any other commodity?
My point is that lip service is all nice and good, but point my to some people where the artistic expression is the primary concern and they make a living with it.

[JazzHessian]

Not that yoiu asked me, but playing music isn't the cure for cancer.

You're eventually going to have to stop with those strawman arguments.

Do you not agree that there are people who forge an emotional connection with music, who appreciate it and understand it on a deeper level than simply having it in the background at a bar or in the car on the way to work?

[JazzHessian]

My point is that lip service is all nice and good, but point my to some people where the artistic expression is the primary concern and they make a living with it.

Do I seriously have to start listing artists? I'll be here all night.

[rwe333]

Bucked the trend at tremendous cost.
But that isn't the point. The point is that the audiences getting smaller and smaller, I don't even know why we're discussing this. Has nothing to do with giving respect to any one.

Though attendance at jazz and improv festivals is up, enrollment in post-secondary music schools is up, etc.
The glory days of improvised music may indeed be ancient history, but lets remember that a left-of-center disc like prezens hit number one in some national jazz charts...
Somebody's listening/buying... Showbiz or not. ;)

[Ed DeGenaro]

You're eventually going to have to stop with those strawman arguments.

Do you not agree that there are people who forge an emotional connection with music, who appreciate it and understand it on a deeper level than simply having it in the background at a bar or in the car on the way to work?
I certainly do agree those exist. But it's simple me expressing myself, and hopefully having an audience for it that appreciates it is still nothing more than my ego getting a good hand job. IT DOES NOT MATTER in the big scheme of things. I can express myself on a beat up acoustic on my porch for my pig. But that doesn't feed any need does it. Now...if we can agree that for whatever we reason we all do what we do...be it go stroke, therapy, money, whatever...we do this shit for a reason. And if it ceased to be feasible to be done then what. It's like the guys that whine abou the end of the world if they couldn't play guitar because
the loose a hand in an accident for example. Life goes on...music is icing...nothin more. That is my strawman point.

[rwe333]

Tell you what this year neither mine nor Fuze's band played the Fretless thing in NYC, the turn out was so bad the club cancelled he second night. No there is something that is in dire need of the Canadian model. Their heart is in the right place, but that goes to show you how much any "movement" goes without marquee approach. I keep telling them to include stuff that isn't fretless only so they can draw some main stream audience. But no...what do I know.

Just catching the 2nd part of your post. We're not on separate pages here, as you know...
Little doubt a business sense is VERY important, esp. for those working in less-commercial music. This is particularly important in these days of most all (even the bigger cats) being "indies".

[Ed DeGenaro]

Though attendance at jazz and improv festivals is up, enrollment in post-secondary music schools is up, etc.
The glory days of improvised music may indeed be ancient history, but lets remember that a left-of-center disc like prezens hit number one in some national jazz charts...
Somebody's listening/buying... Showbiz or not. ;)
Music school enrollment means nothing to me.
Attendance at festivals? Like Jam band stuff? Yes that is the future of improvised music as far as I'm concerned, but again the Jazzholes will tell you it has no businss existing in Jazz.

Good to hear about Torn's latest, I love that CD, that said you don't think the Jeff Beck connection helped its success?
And tell you what since you bring up David, he posted numerous times when he had gigs and how many folks from here would show up?
When I posted about Mock doing his weekly hanf=g here in Seattle I saw 1 forum guy there once after hipping them to it.

[Ed DeGenaro]

Just catching the 2nd part of your post. We're not on separate pages here, as you know...
Little doubt a business sense is VERY important, esp. for those working in less-commercial music. This is particularly important in these days of most all (even the bigger cats) being "indies".
Indeed! I can talk all about being the "Outsider", but when everything is done it IS a business, one that I throw many I make with another business into. For the love of it. So, I like to think I know I thing or 12 about this.

[Ed DeGenaro]

Do I seriously have to start listing artists? I'll be here all night.
I settle for one. And lets make it Jazz.

[rwe333]

Music school enrollment means nothing to me.
Attendance at festivals? Like Jam band stuff? Yes that is the future of improvised music as far as I'm concerned, but again the Jazzholes will tell you it has no businss existing in Jazz.

Good to hear about Torn's latest, I love that CD, that said you don't think the Jeff Beck connection helped its success?
And tell you what since you bring up David, he posted numerous times when he had gigs and how many folks from here would show up?
When I posted about Mock doing his weekly hanf=g here in Seattle I saw 1 forum guy there once after hipping them to it.

Depends on the school - enrollment up at college/universities w/ less trad orientations shows an interest in diverse styles. Also an audience that goes out and sees live music, and will perhaps create something interesting now/later.
And, no, I'm talking jazz and improv festivals w/ some challenging artist bookings.
Little doubt the jam band thing has some legs - Sco got that. ;)
As for prezens, I dunno why the chart-topper. The Beck connection certainly wasn't flaunted in it's promotion. The strong reviews of the disc on-line and elsewhere sure didn't hurt.
Everyone has gigs w/ poor attendance now/again, of course. Then again, if they were ALL poorly attended, sure Torn wouldn't bother. He still does...
And I think we both agree that TGP does not the broader musician community reflect... ;)

[JazzHessian]

I certainly do agree those exist. But it's simple me expressing myself, and hopefully having an audience for it that appreciates it is still nothing more than my ego getting a good hand job. IT DOES NOT MATTER in the big scheme of things. I can express myself on a beat up acoustic on my porch for my pig. But that doesn't feed any need does it. Now...if we can agree that for whatever we reason we all do what we do...be it go stroke, therapy, money, whatever...we do this shit for a reason. And if it ceased to be feasible to be done then what. It's like the guys that whine abou the end of the world if they couldn't play guitar because
the loose a hand in an accident for example. Life goes on...music is icing...nothin more. That is my strawman point.

What does matter in the grand scheme of things? And to whom? By that logic we should all drop our guitars and become teachers, doctors, lawyers, or civil servants.

But we don't. We're musicians. Do you remember why you decided to play music in the first place? Wasn't there something inside of you saying "this is what I love doing"? Did you ever feel a deeper, more emotional connection with music? Doesn't it take a profound love of music to do what we do for a living?

I guess what I'm saying is, if all music is is another means to an end, well... we all made one seriously stupid choice trying to make our living off "icing".

I don't know why you're a musician. But I can tell you that I play music because I love it, because it's an extension of myself. Do I hope lots of people hear it? Of course! But if even one single person hears the music I've created and is moved, is inspired, is pissed off that I wasted their time... well, I think I've done my job.

I'm a good businessman, so I'm not worried about feeding myself. But I think it's important to not only enjoy what you do, but to have a sense of pride about it. In the end, what matters more than that?

[splatt]

Good to hear about Torn's latest, I love that CD, that said you don't think the Jeff Beck connection helped its success?
well, no..... i believe that it didn't.
'cuz hardly anyone who buys cd's
--- at least, MY cd's ---
knows anything about that connection,
except for a few at TGP.
most of whom don't buy my cd's.
or come out to gigs.
as far as i can tell.
(ok, well..... 1 stalwart TGP'er, a fan well pre-JB,
showed up at the Ann Arbor gig.)

what were we talking about, here, again?

dt / spltrcl

[Ed DeGenaro]

What does matter in the grand scheme of things? And to whom? By that logic we should all drop our guitars and become teachers, doctors, lawyers, civil servants.

But we don't. We're musicians. Do you remember why you decided to play music in the first place? Wasn't there something inside of you saying "this is what I love doing"? Did you ever feel a deeper, more emotional connection with music? Doesn't it take a profound love of music to do what we do for a living?

I guess what I'm saying is, if all music is is another means to an end, well... we all made one seriously stupid choice trying to make our living off "icing".

I don't know why you're a musician. But I can tell you that I play music because I love it, because it's an extension of myself. Do I hope lots of people hear it? Of course! But if even one single person hears the music I've created and is moved, is inspired, is pissed off that I wasted their time... well, I think I've done my job.

I'm a good businessman, so I'm not worried about feeding myself. But I think it's important to not only enjoy what you do, but to have a sense of pride about it. In the end, what matters more than that?
Still is that why one gig pays for another. But I gotta tell you, you don't talk like some one that has to make money from music but some one that does the couch tour and calls that being a musician. Unless you get paid, you're not making a living doing that. And once you have to get paid, ideology can take a hit.

[rwe333]

I settle for one. And lets make it Jazz.

Not trying to butt in...

What about Ben Monder, Craig Taborn, Kevin Breit (OK, he's multi-genre), etc...

[Ed DeGenaro]

well, no..... i believe that it didn't.
'cuz hardly anyone who buys cd's
--- at least, MY cd's ---
knows anything about that connection,
except for a few at TGP.
most of whom don't buy my cd's.
or come out to gigs.
as far as i can tell.
(ok, well..... 1 stalwart TGP'er, a fan well pre-JB,
showed up at the Ann Arbor gig.)

what were we talking about, here, again?

dt / spltrcl
I think you just refuted one of my posts and made my point on another one. How the feck are ya anyways, David?

[Ed DeGenaro]

Not trying to butt in...

What about Ben Monder, Craig Taborn, Kevin Breit (OK, he's multi-genre), etc...
I give ya Taborn, don't know enough about Moder, and Breit is the poster boy of what I'm on about. And I love the Sisters Euclid stuff.

[splatt]

I think you just refuted one of my posts and made my point on another one.
ha!
yeah, i thought that might happen.....
but, i can't tell, as my thinking seems to have become
even more non-linear than in past days.....

How the feck are ya anyways, David?
i's gute, ed, thanks!
craaaaaaaaaaaazy-busy, thank G-d.
dude.
dt / spltrcl

[Ed DeGenaro]

Depends on the school - enrollment up at college/universities w/ less trad orientations shows an interest in diverse styles. Also an audience that goes out and sees live music, and will perhaps create something interesting now/later.
And, no, I'm talking jazz and improv festivals w/ some challenging artist bookings.
Little doubt the jam band thing has some legs - Sco got that. ;)
As for prezens, I dunno why the chart-topper. The Beck connection certainly wasn't flaunted in it's promotion. The strong reviews of the disc on-line and elsewhere sure didn't hurt.
Everyone has gigs w/ poor attendance now/again, of course. Then again, if they were ALL poorly attended, sure Torn wouldn't bother. He still does...
And I think we both agree that TGP does not the broader musician community reflect... ;)
You misunderstood...school to me, personally-literally doesn't matter.
As for gig attendance, I'm talking tours no single gigs where it's no biggie.
Take a look at Stern, he's a pretty good indication to me.

[Ed DeGenaro]

ha!
yeah, i thought that might happen.....
but, i can't tell, as my thinking seems to have become
even more non-linear than in past days.....


i's gute, ed, thanks!
craaaaaaaaaaaazy-busy, thank G-d.
dude.
dt / spltrcl
Shit, I'm giving myself a headache in this thread. Time to find some tofu...

[jimfog]

You don't agree? Elaborate, please.


How about YOU list some of the things an audience might want from a musical performance that AREN'T entertainment?

[KRosser]

My point is that lip service is all nice and good, but point my to some people where the artistic expression is the primary concern and they make a living with it.

Dave Holland
Paul Motian
Steve Reich
John Adams
Jim Hall
Leo Brouwer
Ornette Coleman

Really, this could number into the hundreds of thousands...

I was just reading the other day that season ticket sales for symphony orchestras across the US is up, even in the 'bad economy' - that certainly would entail a number of thousands across the US 'making a living off of art' alone.

[JMintzer]

Let's knock off the insults people...


Jamie

[JazzHessian]

Apparently not.

Not that I owe you an explanation since you're being so incomprehensibly snide, but I'm in school getting a music production degree, doing arts marketing on the side, and I'm starting a new band while I'm at it. All the money I make is from my art and goes right back into my art. Yes, money is tight. No, that doesn't bother me. It's sort of what I signed up for.

[JazzHessian]

How about YOU list some of the things an audience might want from a musical performance that AREN'T entertainment?

Well, as a form of expression, music has been known to elicit feelings and human emotion on occasion. Some people (get this) LOVE music. Go figure, right?

Man, I never thought I would be on a forum of musicians and be the only one who feels an emotional connection to music.

[jimfog]

Well, as a form of expression, music has been known to elicit feelings and human emotion on occasion. Some people (get this) LOVE music. Go figure, right?

......and how is that not entertainment?


Man, I never thought I would be on a forum of musicians and be the only one who feels an emotional connection to music.

Must be tough.

[JazzHessian]

......and how is that not entertainment?

I suppose that depends on how you define it. The premise of this thread was that nobody wants to listen to music for music's sake, and rather they need to be "entertained" by some sort of showbiz spectacle.

[KRosser]

How about YOU list some of the things an audience might want from a musical performance that AREN'T entertainment?

The problem is defining 'entertainment'. There is little in the entire world of music as entertaining to me as Julian Bream playing Britten's "Nocturnal".

I'm defining 'entertaining' here the way Kurt Vonnegut did - a pleasurable way to pass the time.

To answer the OP - there are some people that find serious straight-faced jazz entertaining. Apparently you aren't one of them. That's the only conclusion that can be intelligently inferred from that whole exchange, for me...

[Mark Robinson]

My teenage years and early twenties were in the '70s and for about 20 years I was a manic voracious consumer of music. I went to shows constantly, bought records, bought cassettes, made cassettes from records to play in cars, by the hundreds, converted over to C.D.s and then when I hit thirty or so, that tapered off quite a bit. I have no idea why.

I think that most of the voices in this thread are folks in their thirties and up, I'm now 51. The volume of business is now mp3 player downloads. My daughter is 11 and has caught the music bug fiercely. She downloads to the computer, her Ipod, and she'll burn a C.D. and play it loud on her bedroom rig. Like me at that age, she'll listen to a song 15 times in a row.

I used to do that. I remember when we we're young, a dance band would play a number several times over in the course of a night. Those tunes, in any given era, are working well and capture a moment in particular lives. So a lot of this sort of compulsion to music is related to movement, specifically dance, and then seduction, and then there's always some room for a heartfelt lament. It all adds up to what's popular music at a given moment.

Look in Rolling Stone in the back, at the charts, specifically when they take a look, 10 or 20 or even thirty years back. Stunning amounts of corny pop, always happens in any era.

In the heyday of Jazz, there were novelty vocal numbers, some of the corniest stuff ever put out. But there was inexorable forward movement, coming from virtuoso players and writers and the swing material was very danceable. So Jazz was hot as could possibly be, until it got too croony, and the bebop folks strayed away from the dance crowd, and the rock folks were happy to take the gig. Jazz quit being pop, and became a "player's" music.

So jumping forward a couple of decades, where does a smart guy virtuoso player fit in today's musical world? Under the tent of "Jazz" it's not automatically required that there be lyrics, and a danceable beat is optional, so somewhere in that big stew, there may be someone who gets obsessive enjoyment from some new ideas from the hypothetical virtuoso? I think that it's likely that our guy will be asked to play some standards on the way to some avant garde situation. Does he have to ham it up? Is that going to "save the day" it may "win the girl" certainly.

I do think that there is room for anything, including bold innovation, if the particular music gets good exposure. Remember Tubular Bells? It was sort of an odd duck, came hooked to a popular movie, and sold like crazy. So there is hope that some virtuoso expression of highly original point of view can achieve broad success, but I don't believe that choreography is going to be the tipping point for that success. Sorry for the ramble.

[jimfog]

The problem is defining 'entertainment'. There is little in the entire world of music as entertaining to me as Julian Bream playing Britten's "Nocturnal".

American Idol, which prides itself on being a bastion of entertainment savvy, does nothing for me yet I don't doubt lots of people do find it entertaining.

I'm defining 'entertaining' here the way Kurt Vonnegut did - a pleasurable way to pass the time. 'Pleasurable in what way' is up to you.

That's the great thing about entertainment, and 'art' for that matter, for those that draw a line (I don't, really...life's too short...). We can define it for ourselves.

See....that's the thing , I see ALL of it as "entertainment".

Also, I think whenever you are performing music in front of an audience, no matter the genre or venue, you ARE an "entertainer"..............and therefore the the audience MUST be considered.

Now, that doesn't have to be cheeseball theatrics, necessarily (although that's what made me the success I am today!), but it must be part of the equation, or why bother being in public anyway?

In other words, if you get on stage with the attitude of "Watch ME get off here", you're not fulfilling your DUTY as a performer......stay at home, please.

All IMO, of course.

- Jim

[Thinsocks]

to answer the op - there are some people that find serious straight-faced jazz entertaining. Apparently you aren't one of them. That's the only conclusion that can be intelligently inferred from that whole exchange, for me...

+1.

[JazzHessian]

See....that's the thing , I see ALL of it as "entertainment".

Also, I think whenever you are performing music in front of an audience, no matter the genre or venue, you ARE an "entertainer"..............and therefore the the audience MUST be considered.

Now, that doesn't have to be cheeseball theatrics, necessarily (although that's what made me the success I am today!), but it must be part of the equation, or why bother being in public anyway?

In other words, if you get on stage with the attitude of "Watch ME get off here", you're not fulfilling your DUTY as a performer......stay at home, please.

All IMO, of course.

- Jim

So you're saying that music by itself does not have intrinsic value?

[jimfog]

So you're saying that music by itself does not have intrinsic value?

Sure.....and that's why I buy CD's......we're talking about live PERFORMANCE here.

[KRosser]

See....that's the thing , I see ALL of it as "entertainment".

Also, I think whenever you are performing music in front of an audience, no matter the genre or venue, you ARE an "entertainer"..............and therefore the the audience MUST be considered.

Now, that doesn't have to be cheeseball theatrics, necessarily (although that's what made me the success I am today!), but it must be part of the equation, or why bother being in public anyway?

In other words, if you get on stage with the attitude of "Watch ME get off here", you're not fulfilling your DUTY as a performer......stay at home, please.

All IMO, of course.

- Jim

I consider the audience by doing what I'm good at - playing the guitar, structuring an evening's worth of compelling music into a compelling format and giving it to them with conviction. Something where even if they don't know jack about music they'll hear and appreciate that care was put into it on thier behalf.

Out of equal respect for the audience, I spare them what I'm not good at - steps and witty banter.

I do plenty of work for others who are good at steps and witty banter, that allow me to do what I'm good at. If there's mutual respect for each other's strengths happening, that can be a good situation...

[Scott Miller]

"Watch ME get off here"

That can be very entertaining. In fact, if it's clear that the musician is NOT getting off, that is, if they're bored, it kind of loses some entertainment value.

[jimfog]

Out of equal respect for the audience, I spare them what I'm not good at - steps and witty banter.

But do you make no attempt at all to communicate with your audience, Ken? Even a simple "thank you", or explanation of the program, or introduction of players (assuming it's your gig)?

Just curious.

[splatt]

Man, I never thought I would be on a forum of musicians and be the only one who feels an emotional connection to music.
you're def NOT ALONE!
really.
not at all.
seems to me that life
--- and music, part & parcel of life's blood, insofar as humans are involved ---
cannot be boiled-down to a simplistic set of defining "truths"
via any group-"conversation",
esp. on the internet,
& esp. with (even relative) strangers.

believe it or not,
i always consider the audience..... somehow.
but, not to the point where it might distract me from
engaging with the SELF-expressive exploration for which we all (ie, & i) have come.
dt / spltrcl

[KRosser]

But do you make no attempt at all to communicate with your audience, Ken? Even a simple "thank you", or explanation of the program, or introduction of players (assuming it's your gig)?

Just curious.

"Thank you" and introducing the players is about as demonstrative as I get usually...anything beyond that is pretty rare...sometimes something about the program if I feel like I have something to say of interest but I try not to wear out my welcome with that. I wouldn't do it because I feel like if I don't talk I'll lose them.

Honestly - I vastly prefer gigs where someone else gets to do all that stuff. It feels pretty forced when I do it, though a few years of classroom teaching have helped me get a little better at it.

[jimfog]

you're def NOT ALONE!
really.
not at all.
seems to me that life
--- and music, part & parcel of life's blood, insofar as humans are involved ---
cannot be boiled-down to a simplistic set of defining "truths"
via any group-"conversation",
esp. on the internet,
& esp. with (even relative) strangers.
dt / spltrcl

LOL

Reading through that fast, I misread your last line as:

"& esp. with (even relative) SINGERS."

I thought......wait on, I'm related to singers!! Hell, I'm one.....kinda, sorta.

Oooops...........never mind.

[edgewound]

So, consequently, after going through several generations reshaping rock in its own image, rock in 2008 sounds very little like rock in 1958.



No...but, you can hear all the influence from 1968 to the present.

[KRosser]

I suppose that depends on how you define it. The premise of this thread was that nobody wants to listen to music for music's sake, and rather they need to be "entertained" by some sort of showbiz spectacle.

FWIW, though I agree with Jim, that's how I interpreted the OP as well...

Some people find music for music's sake entertaining.

And that's OK....

[Scott Miller]

But do you make no attempt at all to communicate with your audience, Ken? Even a simple "thank you", or explanation of the program, or introduction of players (assuming it's your gig)?

Sounds like Mose Allison. One of the best shows I've ever seen. Weird music, too, very much out there.

[KRosser]

Man, I never thought I would be on a forum of musicians and be the only one who feels an emotional connection to music.

No, you're certainly not...

But 'entertainment' and 'emotional connection' are not necessarily mutually exclusive, given the highly subjective nature of both...

[jimfog]

No, you're certainly not...

But 'entertainment' and 'emotional connection' are not necessarily mutually exclusive, given the highly subjective nature of both...

Thank you.

I will finish up here (Phils time!!) by saying..........please keep in mind that "entertaining" can be many things, and isn't necessarily (in fact, rarely is) "pandering".

[edgewound]

No, you're certainly not...

But 'entertainment' and 'emotional connection' are not necessarily mutually exclusive, given the highly subjective nature of both...

Two of my favorite musicians....rest their souls...Buddy Rich and Stevie Ray Vaughn...

Part of their "entertainment" value was their 200% effort of delivering their music to a live audience. Not once did either one "phone it in". Passion came flooding from the stage at every performance.

Buddy Rich toured with Frank Sinatra around 1985. Buddy was sweating buckets and looked like he was ready to collapse...but he drove that band with the same conviction that he had for decades previous.

That's called delivering a performance. If it's not verbal...it has to be physical to connect with the audience.

[RichardB]

Thank you.

I will finish up here (Phils time!!) by saying..........please keep in mind that "entertaining" can be many things, and isn't necessarily (in fact, rarely is) "pandering".

Totally right on Jim, which is why you are gigging and the rest on this thread are teaching or doing other stuff to "subsidize"!

as much as folks will try to twist and turn it, if you can't be entertaining, you dont deserve to have an audience. Just play at home, 'cause the audience being there is effectively meaningless. Make a recording of your "great art" at home and get off on that...anyway

thanks for a great discussion guys! I laughed, I cried and now I need the bathroom, so keep on keeping on, I love you'se guys

[Scott Miller]

if you can't be entertaining, you dont deserve to have an audience.

Although I think we figured out that just playing music, even non-emotional, non-communicative, and non-approachable music, can be entertaining. So, everyone deserves an audience. All we have to do is define terms so broadly that they become meaningless, and then we'll agree on everything!

[jzucker]

Jazz died when popular music moved on. Jazz was pop music in it's day, now it's not. It's as simple as that.

[Bassomatic]

FWIW, though I agree with Jim, that's how I interpreted the OP as well...

Some people find music for music's sake entertaining.

And that's OK....

Sure - but Vonnegut's quote reads like passing the time is the priority, not soaking up art, culture, whatever, with "being entertained" as a sort of side effect.

[Bassomatic]

as much as folks will try to twist and turn it, if you can't be entertaining, you dont deserve to have an audience.

It's not that folks necessarily want to twist and turn it, it's just that this is so vague as to be near-meaningless. What's entertaining to you? Prolly very different than what 3 other random folks find entertaining. Whose satndard of "entertainment" should be addressed? The common denominator?

aesthetics+long division = bloody mess

[RichardB]

It's not that folks necessarily want to twist and turn it, it's just that this is so vague as to be near-meaningless. What's entertaining to you? Prolly very different than what 3 other random folks find entertaining. Whose satndard of "entertainment" should be addressed? The common denominator?

aesthetics+long division = bloody mess


No.

folks do want to twist and turn it, because deep down they know that having a stage personality which is:

a. the equivalent of a mop dipped in porridge

b. the equivalent of a wall-mounted moosehead

c. adversarial towards the audience

is not really making it. They know this deep down, but aren't man enough to swallow their pride and self-embarrasment to toss the audience a bone and work on some stage chops. And that's all the audience mostly needs. Just a glimmer of recognition that they are there, and that they dont have to suplicate before some bs altar of A R T and the "geniuses" making it.

Those days are long gone and the dwindling audiences are proof. Democratization of opinion has been here for a long time now and it's growing more defiant. People refuse to be "preached" to. And, I agree w/ them.
So you wanna play some esoteric shit, right. Good on ya,I love that stuff, but you are gonna have to "sell" even harder w/ that stuff. If you can't get the house with whatever stuff you are doing, you ain't making it....Proof of the pudding.

So they wallow in the "sensitive emo artist" as a smokescreen. and then some even have the effrontery to bag the audience for not "getting" their precious art...I see it the world over, again and again. Precious emo jazz musicians commiserating w/ each other about the "barbarian" civilians...

[Bassomatic]

No.

folks do want to twist and turn it, because deep down they know that having a stage personality which is:

a. the equivalent of a mop dipped in porridge

b. the equivalent of a wall-mounted moosehead

c. adversarial towards the audience

None of those describe my own stage presence, fortunately. One can be interested in self-epression and still not come off as a douche. It doesn't necessarily make one subhuman or hostile (though hostility can be entertaining in its own right).

Guess I really don't see why you have an axe to grind, since the problem will self-correct, when folks don't deserve the attention they get, or get attention they don't deserve(?).

[JazzHessian]

I'm not even sure I know what the OP is actually talking about anymore.

[splatt]

Totally right on Jim, which is why you are gigging and the rest on this thread are teaching or doing other stuff to "subsidize"!

ditto the props to jim, but please note that
many of us in this thread are.....
..... errrrmmmmm.....
gigging.
dt / spltrcl

[Scott Miller]

I had to look up "supplicate."

ask humbly (for something); "He supplicated the King for clemency"

Geez. I've seen some of the most far-out performances you can imagine, from some positively zombie-like performers, and I never felt like I was being asked to supplicate.

I have definitely been to concerts where some of the audience had a fabulous musical experience, and other members of the audience apparently felt like they were being asked to supplicate, and were quite vocal in their protestations thereof, before they stormed out.

I think there are just different expectations and perceptions. I also think that if you minimize your expectations, in other words, keep an open mind, you might enjoy yourself more. Or at least feel not so much like the supplicatee.

[RichardB]

ditto the props to jim, but please note that
many of us in this thread are.....
..... errrrmmmmm.....
gigging.
dt / spltrcl

Dave,

Correct me if I am wrong, but I just looked at your site schedule and having one gig every 2 or 3 weeks isn't really gigging for a living.
Your film music gig is therefore subsidizing the other stuff, I assume. Which further supports my point that even a "name" musician like yourself, has a tough time w/ shriking audiences etc.

[KRosser]

No.

folks do want to twist and turn it, because deep down they know that having a stage personality which is:

a. the equivalent of a mop dipped in porridge

b. the equivalent of a wall-mounted moosehead

c. adversarial towards the audience

is not really making it. They know this deep down, but aren't man enough to swallow their pride and self-embarrasment to toss the audience a bone and work on some stage chops. And that's all the audience mostly needs. Just a glimmer of recognition that they are there, and that they dont have to suplicate before some bs altar of A R T and the "geniuses" making it.

Those days are long gone and the dwindling audiences are proof. Democratization of opinion has been here for a long time now and it's growing more defiant. People refuse to be "preached" to. And, I agree w/ them.
So you wanna play some esoteric shit, right. Good on ya,I love that stuff, but you are gonna have to "sell" even harder w/ that stuff. If you can't get the house with whatever stuff you are doing, you ain't making it....Proof of the pudding.

So they wallow in the "sensitive emo artist" as a smokescreen. and then some even have the effrontery to bag the audience for not "getting" their precious art...I see it the world over, again and again. Precious emo jazz musicians commiserating w/ each other about the "barbarian" civilians...


I'm sorry, this is just too simple to cut it in the real world that I live in. One in which I see conductors walk out, bow to the audience as their only gesture toward them, then turn his back to them and direct bunch of musicians sitting down to play abstruse modern music for an hour and a half to the sold out premier concert venue in my city, then bow on his way out to a standing ovation.

I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Many times.

This is nothing more than an airing of personal grievances on your part, i.e. I believe you're preaching to your own choir.

[JazzHessian]

I'm sorry, this is just too simple to cut it in the real world that I live in. One in which I see conductors walk out, bow to the audience as their only gesture toward them, then turn his back to them and direct bunch of musicians sitting down to play abstruse modern music for an hour and a half to the sold out premier concert venue in my city, then bow on his way out to a standing ovation.

I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Many times.

This is nothing more than an airing of personal grievances on your part.

Said it better than I could.

[KRosser]

Dave,

Correct me if I am wrong, but I just looked at your site schedule and having one gig every 2 or 3 weeks isn't really gigging for a living.
Your film music gig is therefore subsidizing the other stuff, I assume. Which further supports my point that even a "name" musician like yourself, has a tough time w/ shriking audiences etc.

I believe you're making judgements about someone's career choices based on some really spurious assumptions.

[JazzHessian]

I believe you're making judgements about someone's career choices based on some really spurious assumptions.

Wouldn't be the first time that's happened. Hell, it's not the first time it's happened in this thread. The assumptions people make here are really, truly ridiculous.

[GerryJ]

.....
The audience is blameless, the listener, innocent.
The musicians, you and I, are only guilty of our unquestioning belief that music is a language, and as such our thoughts about "what it is" are somehow transmitted through sound.
As if the sounds we produce are some kind of secret code that only the truly hip will understand.


That's so true.
Think of great composers and players -any genre - Bernstein, Ellington, Lennon/McCartney...and ask yourself, did they dumb it down?

[realityczech]

Dave,

Correct me if I am wrong, but I just looked at your site schedule and having one gig every 2 or 3 weeks isn't really gigging for a living.
Your film music gig is therefore subsidizing the other stuff, I assume. Which further supports my point that even a "name" musician like yourself, has a tough time w/ shriking audiences etc.

The term "gigging" to me means someone who is playing music for a living.
Live shows, studio work, film scores whatever

Anyways... you can make all kinds of faces and jump around in the studio or sit somberly in a chair...just like you can playing live.

[splatt]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I just looked at your site schedule and having one gig every 2 or 3 weeks isn't really gigging for a living.
yeah, i think yer kinda wrong.
i do def not perform weekly, but i've been doing about +/- 30 performances per year.
and, certainly, not nearly all of my gigs
are posted on my website;
i can be lax, like that.
(and, i'm very often just too busy to
pay attention to the site..... sad, really.)

Your film music gig is therefore subsidizing the other stuff, I assume.
no;
the gigs are self-sustaining.

sometime around 2001, i'd decided to severely curtail
touring & live performances,
for personal reasons..... and, because i truly enjoy
my daily time in studios:
composing, producing & occasionally playing
for interesting artists.

for the past few years, though,
and at the insistence of a few insane friends,
i re-increased the gigging;
2006-2008, as i said:
it seems like i've played live
roughly 30-40 times per year.
not nearly as much as in my very regularly-touring days,
but still.

indeed, the key gigs pay quite nicely.
i might do pretty well
for myself, fi$cally, if i wanted to be on the road more.....
..... which i do not.
again, for personal reasons.
{not the least of which includes the incredible number
of long-distance performances & tours i've done
in this lightning-storm of a lifetime, missing waaaaaay much of the key moments
of loved ones' lives.....}

in any case,
i certainly still consider myself a performing musician;
i've only slowed down the speed, frequency & distance
of the road-warrior's chariots.

even a "name" musician like yourself, has a tough time w/ shriking audiences etc.
sometimes, and in some places?
yeah, i suppose.
in most places, though?
nah.
the audiences are definitely there;
they clearly aren't derived from TGP members, though.
ha!
hth.
dt / spltrcl

[realityczech]

otoh, of course:
the considerations herein are not without some merit
worthy of perusal,
i believe:

..... just that the divining-points for "final" judgments
in such matters are, by nature,oily & morphic,
and can better be gripped & decided by individuals
for they's own selves, they own lives.
i think.
maybe.
i dunno.

doesn't really matter;
what we do & how we do it
may, finally, be of more significance than
pages' worth of blather.
i think.
maybe.
i dunno.

dt / spltrcl

Sometimes within those pages of blather an idea is born an opinion shaped and a lesson learned
Lets babble on ...something good will evolve.

[rwe333]

I don't buy that one bit.
Improvised music has been going on for how many thousands of years?
'Glory days'? What, the 50s?

Snipped a bit outta context, huh?
Was a reply to Ed and audience numbers, simply.

I do very much hope an audience for improvised music will subsist and (hopefully) flourish.

[rwe333]

Totally right on Jim, which is why you are gigging and the rest on this thread are teaching or doing other stuff to "subsidize"!

Wow... Jumping to a few conclusion here, huh RB?
Props to Jim, of course, but you're doing exactly what w/ your days? ;)

[jimfog]

Ever seen a North Indian classical performance?
There's not really much in the way of introductions, its just kinda sit there and play,mabye introduce a rag, mabye quick thank you

Disagree.........

I've seen many, and at their best, there is HEAVY communication between the performers and audience. The most extreme example being, friends and I lucked into front row seat to see Ravi Shankar at the Academy of Music..........we all, individually, and without discussing it, came away with the impression that what the performers were DIRECTLY playing was influenced by our presence. If it wasn't so wonderful, it would have been creepy, in fact.

BTW.......if the term "gigging musician" includes dumbass ME, but not Torn and some others here...well then:

a) There's something wrong with the definition

b) I don't want to be one

- Jim

[rwe333]

Yeah, sorry...
By that you mean glory days of improvizing in jazz?
I'm not trying to insult your intellegence or anything, there really are guys who don't consider that there improvizing in other parts of the music world, and that's it's been happening forever.

Didn't mean to cut ya, just wanted to add some hope to this thread - IMO, the human race won't ever stop improvising, and I dont think there's such a thing as 'glory days' for improv.

No argument here...
My back/forth w/ Ed headed a bit towards the 'fusion' side, so my comment was more in context of the '70s "glory days" of that genre.
Little doubt improvisation exists and develops in a wide-range of contexts...

[RichardB]

yeah, i think yer kinda wrong.
i do def not perform weekly, but i've been doing about +/- 30 performances per year.
and, certainly, not nearly all of my gigs
are posted on my website;
i can be lax, like that.
(and, i'm very often just too busy to
pay attention to the site..... sad, really.)


no;
the gigs are self-sustaining.

sometime around 2001, i'd decided to severely curtail
touring & live performances,
for personal reasons..... and, because i truly enjoy
my daily time in studios:
composing, producing & occasionally playing
for interesting artists.

for the past few years, though,
and at the insistence of a few insane friends,
i re-increased the gigging;
2006-2008, as i said:
it seems like i've played live
roughly 30-40 times per year.
not nearly as much as in my very regularly-touring days,
but still.

indeed, the key gigs pay quite nicely.
i might do pretty well
for myself, fi$cally, if i wanted to be on the road more.....
..... which i do not.
again, for personal reasons.
{not the least of which includes the incredible number
of long-distance performances & tours i've done
in this lightning-storm of a lifetime, missing waaaaaay much of the key moments
of loved ones' lives.....}

in any case,
i certainly still consider myself a performing musician;
i've only slowed down the speed, frequency & distance
of the road-warrior's chariots.


sometimes, and in some places?
yeah, i suppose.
in most places, though?
nah.
the audiences are definitely there;
they clearly aren't derived from TGP members, though.
ha!
hth.
dt / spltrcl

Dave,

champion!, pleased to hear my assumption was wrong!

[RichardB]

I'm sorry, this is just too simple to cut it in the real world that I live in. One in which I see conductors walk out, bow to the audience as their only gesture toward them, then turn his back to them and direct bunch of musicians sitting down to play abstruse modern music for an hour and a half to the sold out premier concert venue in my city, then bow on his way out to a standing ovation.

I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Many times.

This is nothing more than an airing of personal grievances on your part, i.e. I believe you're preaching to your own choir.

C'mon Ken, don't make me drag out the old bar graphs which indisputably indicate declining popularity in jazz and classical across the world...

[RichardB]

I believe you're making judgements about someone's career choices based on some really spurious assumptions.


What was so "spurious"?

I checked Dave's schedule on his site and it indicated just a few dates and so I assumed he was making up the shortfall w/ the film gig.I suspect anyone would have come to my "spurious" conclusion ;-)....which Dave then kindly corrected

[jimfog]

Sure, but there aren't any of the greetings, etc. spoken of by the OP.
Right?
That was my only point, I guess.
There can be interaction with no words.

Agreed......but we are talking about "entertaining" and connecting with an audience.........mission accomplished. (edit: actually, I remember Ravi being quite chatty, while other shows I've seen were less so)



I've seen gigs where there hasn't been a word said to the audience, I'm cool with that...

Sure....but you're a musician.

As Ed kinda said..........you'll starve if other musicians are your core audience. I actually prefer NOT to have other musicians at my gigs. It brings up a whole weird dynamic, sometimes.

Want to elaborate on what you felt was directly influenced on Ravi's part?
Front row? Cool!

Hard to explain with getting too airy-fairy.......but it was if I felt it, and they played it...........as opposed to the reverse, which happens on a good night, usually.

[RichardB]

Wow... Jumping to a few conclusion here, huh RB?
Props to Jim, of course, but you're doing exactly what w/ your days? ;)

No conclusion's jumped to. I am part of this thread and as such am part of the "teaching" guys I refer to in the thread...

[RichardB]

Big +1!



Ever seen a North Indian classical performance?
There's not really much in the way of introductions, its just kinda sit there and play,mabye introduce a rag, mabye quick thank you.
Anyways, I'm catching up on this thread so I missed some points - let me know if I'm doing a loop here!

That's all theory Jamie. The reality is I went and heard Srinivas a few yrs back at the Sydney Op House. The audience was about 50 people in a large hall. Embarrassingly small for one of India's greatest classical music masters.

I think those Indian mufkas need to start having introductions and need to start subscribing to this thread, and then eventually thanking me for rescuing their music from obscurity.

[KRosser]

What was so "spurious"?

I checked Dave's schedule on his site and it indicated just a few dates and so I assumed he was making up the shortfall w/ the film gig.I suspect anyone would have come to my "spurious" conclusion ;-)....which Dave then kindly corrected

Since David is here, it would have been a good opportunity to maybe ask if dwindling audiences was part of his experience or perception instead of jumping to that conclusion based on partial information.

Jumping to conclusions based on partial information seems to be a recurring theme of yours here in this thread.

[KRosser]

That's all theory Jamie. The reality is I went and heard Srinivas a few yrs back at the Sydney Op House. The audience was about 50 people in a large hall. Embarrassingly small for one of India's greatest classical music masters.

I think those Indian mufkas need to start having introductions and need to start subscribing to this thread, and then eventually thanking me for rescuing their music from obscurity.

Oh, I get it...

I thought you were being serious this whole time :jo

My bad!! Good one!!! carry on....

[KRosser]

C'mon Ken, don't make me drag out the old bar graphs which indisputably indicate declining popularity in jazz and classical across the world...

Please - drag them out. For my benefit.

Then show me the bar graph that indisputably correlates it to a lack of "stage chops".

Thanks

[SyKrash]

Please - drag them out. For my benefit.

Then show me the bar graph that indisputably correlates it to a lack of "stage chops".

Thanks
I always thought "Stage" chops were the opposite of bedroom chops: the kind of playing one does in his/her bedroom that never seems to translate to live performance.

:confused:

[RichardB]

Please - drag them out. For my benefit.

Then show me the bar graph that indisputably correlates it to a lack of "stage chops".

Thanks

Ken,
the net is FILLED w/ articles on the decline in audiences:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/arts/music/25ravi.html

http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/nerr/rr2003/q2/requiem.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-kurtz/who-cares-about-classical_b_54779.html


these are but the tip of the iceberg...
All the stage chops in the world ain't going to be able to help the fact that the real reason this stuff is declining is that the music is not liked by people. Simple. People don't like classical or jazz generally. So all i am saying is that bringing some stage chops would at least pull a few more civilians into what is perceived as a clique-ey, exclusive and snobbish culture.
Anyone who cant get w/ my program here has their head in the sand. No other way to say it.

[Red Suede]

Scott Henderson's not starving. He just plays in Europe where he says he hears his music on the radio. Plays exactly what he wants. Hendrix and Clapton just stood there and played, Hendrix even said in an article he didn't want to burn guitars and play behind his head anymore as evidenced in "Band Of Gypsies". Just stood there and played. You don't have to be a dancing monkey to get your point across. Most times when I go see someone I go to see them for what they do, whether they dance around or just stand there and do their thing.

[Ed DeGenaro]

I don't buy that one bit.
Improvised music has been going on for how many thousands of years?
'Glory days'? What, the 50s?




Ok, that begs the question, what is important to life?food, shelter, clothing...

[mike walker]

Been to many gigs. I remember one where the Chick Corea electic band danced like robots in synch. I could hear a manager saying somewhere 'but you have to connect'.
You should have seen the look on the face of that audience. Think 'The Producers'.
Much walking out on that gig.
James Taylor has a great connection with his audience. It's very natural, unforced.
Problem is when people feel a need to 'communicate' to sell the product and the audience can smell a forced word from a mile away.
I think balance is the word here. I'm reminded of those that wear a grafted smile when they want to sell something. If you keep your eyes on them after you have declined the offer, the smile turns to whatever they were feeling before they made the play.
Don't try and play funky. Just play funky.

Mike

[Neer]

I should be able to close my eyes and listen at a Jazz concert and appreciate it just as much. Jazz is all about the music for me.

[JazzHessian]

food, shelter, clothing...

Well if that's all you need to survive, why not just grab a 9-5 accounting job instead of playing music? You can take care of those needs much better that way.

[mike walker]

Also,
In a world where people seem to be so self conscious and hung up in so many ways, listening to someone express themselves in a live situation, free from the burdens we heap on one another knowingly or otherwise, is a niche that fulfills the needs of many a musician and audience alike.


Mike

[KRosser]

Ken,
the net is FILLED w/ articles on the decline in audiences:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/arts/music/25ravi.html

http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/nerr/rr2003/q2/requiem.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-kurtz/who-cares-about-classical_b_54779.html



Richard - not to be snotty here, but did you actually read those articles? The first is more about the way it's marketed and actually sounds an optimistic note at the end. The second says attendance is actually on the rise and sales as a percentage have held steady the last 20 years. The third speaks only to classical era repetoire and it's an editorial blog, not a factual study.

Also, you promised me 'the world' and these are only from the US, where we all know arts appreciation in general is in decline and politicians on the campaign trail use the word "intellectual" as a criticism.

Where's those bar charts, dude?



All the stage chops in the world ain't going to be able to help the fact that the real reason this stuff is declining is that the music is not liked by people. Simple. People don't like classical or jazz generally.


Richard - there's no "people" that either like or don't like everything. There's plenty of folks that like jazz and classical music. They know they're a minority audience. Why is that such an issue for you? I honestly don't get it.

What if it could be determined that 95% of the planet hated classical music? Don't the other 5% deserve to have something to listen to? Why does that concept rankle you so?


So all i am saying is that bringing some stage chops would at least pull a few more civilians into what is perceived as a clique-ey, exclusive and snobbish culture.
Anyone who cant get w/ my program here has their head in the sand. No other way to say it.


I'm sorry, Richard, this really sounds like an appeal to the lowest common denominator.

I get that it bums you out when musicians don't make an active appeal to pull you in - I think that's cool. I just don't think 1) you're representative of "people" in any kind of large-scale way, and 2) I don't think it says anything about the musical culture(s) at large in any meaningful way as I experience them.

Anyway - I think there's a decent and honest living to be made appealing to a minority audience if one is realistic about it.

[KRosser]

Well if that's all you need to survive, why not just grab a 9-5 accounting job instead of playing music? You can take care of those needs much better that way.

Ha! Have you ever seen MY accounting skills? Trust me, playing and teaching guitar is a much more effective way for me to get my needs met...

There's no way I could get an entry-level 'straight' job making what I do as a musician.

[KRosser]

That's all theory Jamie. The reality is I went and heard Srinivas a few yrs back at the Sydney Op House. The audience was about 50 people in a large hall. Embarrassingly small for one of India's greatest classical music masters.

I think those Indian mufkas need to start having introductions and need to start subscribing to this thread, and then eventually thanking me for rescuing their music from obscurity.

But what did you think of the music?

[Ed DeGenaro]

Well if that's all you need to survive, why not just grab a 9-5 accounting job instead of playing music? You can take care of those needs much better that way.
Because that's not what I WANT. However it would be all I NEED. Get it? Just because I have chose to play music, and just because when I don't I get VERY cranky doesn't mean that I have to play to survive. Would I like it? Probably not, but that is beside the point. Just because some one wants to be an artist does and tosses shit against a wall doesn't mean it sticks.

[Ed DeGenaro]

But what did you think of the music?
Ken what does that have to do with it? I'd say it likely was inspiring. amazing, etc...but it has NOTHING to do wit Richard's initial point that if you wanna sell shit you gotta get an audience.

[Ed DeGenaro]

Also,
In a world where people seem to be so self conscious and hung up in so many ways, listening to someone express themselves in a live situation, free from the burdens we heap on one another knowingly or otherwise, is a niche that fulfills the needs of many a musician and audience alike.


Mike
Then why prey tell wasn't there a mass pilgrimage to Torn's gigs when he posted them on here? All I see is lip service. I have yet to see musician's from here supporting other muso's in their gig endeavors around here.

[Ed DeGenaro]

Dave Holland
Paul Motian
Steve Reich
John Adams
Jim Hall
Leo Brouwer
Ornette Coleman

Really, this could number into the hundreds of thousands...

I was just reading the other day that season ticket sales for symphony orchestras across the US is up, even in the 'bad economy' - that certainly would entail a number of thousands across the US 'making a living off of art' alone.
Bad economy usually bodes well for "entertainment" I see it with the Country hang.
As for your list...current guys?

[JazzHessian]

Anyway - I think there's a decent and honest living to be made appealing to a minority audience if one is realistic about it.

This really is the bottom line.

[JazzHessian]

Because that's not what I WANT. However it would be all I NEED. Get it? Just because I have chose to play music, and just because when I don't I get VERY cranky doesn't mean that I have to play to survive. Would I like it? Probably not, but that is beside the point.

That is exactly the point. Are you familiar with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_needs)?

Just because some one wants to be an artist does and tosses shit against a wall doesn't mean it sticks.

No one ever said it would. But with the right combination of business sense, realism, and an understanding of one's audience, it's entirely possible to make a living in the music industry making the music you love. It's not exactly a common combination of skills, but it's not as impossible as you make it seem.

[russ6100]

Ed DeGenero wrote:
...but it has NOTHING to do wit Richard's initial point that if you wanna sell shit you gotta get an audience.

Initial point?

This was Richard's opening line:
If you can't "entertain" and make the jazz you are playing approachable and entertaining and communicative, then you don't deserve to be on the freaking stage.

That's a bit different, no?

[Ed DeGenaro]

Ed DeGenero wrote:


Initial point?

This was Richard's opening line:


That's a bit different, no?
I guess I read him different...

[Ed DeGenaro]

That is exactly the point. Are you familiar with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_needs)?



No one ever said it would. But with the right combination of business sense, realism, and an understanding of one's audience, it's entirely possible to make a living in the music industry making the music you love. It's not exactly a common combination of skills, but it's not as impossible as you make it seem.
I am familiar with it.

I'm not making anything out as impossible...my ENTIRE point is that art no one uses/sees/hears/touches/feels/whatever might as well not exist.
My point is that if you need to entertain your audience to have one, the fekkin' entertain them. Feel free to define for yourself what entertain is.

Where we drift apart is with "the music you love" kinda statements. It doesn't matter what genre I do, whatever is generated by me I'll accept. So, it's so not a matter of doing a conscious..."this is what I love this is what I do", it's a matter of just doing.

[JazzHessian]

I am familiar with it.

I'm not making anything out as impossible...my ENTIRE point is that art no one uses/sees/hears/touches/feels/whatever might as well not exist.
My point is that if you need to entertain your audience to have one, the fekkin' entertain them. Feel free to define for yourself what entertain is.

Where we drift apart is with "the music you love" kinda statements. It doesn't matter what genre I do, whatever is generated by me I'll accept. So, it's so not a matter of doing a conscious..."this is what I love this is what I do", it's a matter of just doing.

Right, my whole point is that there's an audience for every kind of artist.

If you want to be in a pop/rock band and get played on the radio, great! If you want to gig nightly in a tribute act, fine! If you want to play minimalist jazz because you get off on the artistic content, and you don't care about entertaining people, good for you! Not all music is created equal. We all have different goals, different ideas of success, and different definitions of "entertainment", different reasons for making music.

None of which makes anyone more "deserving" of an audience than anyone else.

Fact is, whether you know it or not, you already have an audience out there. And with some business savvy, clever marketing, hard work and a healthy dose of realism, you can find them and exploit that niche, however small it might be. Most importantly, you can play whatever you damn well please and get people to listen.

As for the OP, I still don't understand why anyone would be so resistant to accept that, even if they don't like music that leans more towards "art" than "entertainment", there are audiences out there who enjoy it, and artists out there who make a living doing it. And in the end, these are the artists who keep music moving forward, and prevent it from becoming stagnate.

[TNJ]

How does that make any sense...we're talking about some one following a path beating into the ground harder than 2 dollar hooker on ski ro
Miles. Trane, Parker..all caused paradigm shifts. "Mr. Another Bebop Player 30 years Late" at best can hope to hold his audiece by entertaining them.
Have you seen Stern within the last few years...tell me he's not playing to the house.

It makes sense to me because Miles would NEVER have tried to demonstrate ANY "showbiz" skills. His disdain for audiences, as well as fellow players, is well known. Ask Wynton Marsalis, no Satchmo either, how he was received by Miles back when he was getting started. No love loss there...for Miles, no love loss hardly anywhere. And it definitely translated to the stage.
To me, he'll always be the poster child of the holier than thou jazzbo...with a mean streak almost as visible as his creative genius. Think Spike Lee with a trumpet, and you get my drift.
And, I've seen Stern live. I'm not sure what you're driving at by including him in this discussion.
To me, jazz players with good stage presence are guys like Pat Metheny, Chick Corea, Herbie Hancock, Nat King Cole, Dizzy, Louis Armstrong, Oscar Peterson, Larry Carlton, George Benson, etc. Stern isnt on either side of the showbiz skill spectrum, IMO.
Alot of the earlier jazz players were quite animated and upbeat when playing live.
To be quite honest, I think drugs, especially Heroin, turned the whole thing around...at least the live "look" of the nodding out jazz player, totally introspective and totally on his own trip. Parker and Coltrane were almost otherworldly in their lack of awareness of the audience...it was all about them and their trip. Not saying they werent the envelope pushing pioneering geniuses of jazz...they were. But we're not talking about that.
To me, this thread asks the question: "Is it possible, indeed is it a higher artform, to play serious jazz music in an ensemble setting and positively include/acknowledge the audience before, during, and after the performance?".
The answer, as I see it, is absolutely...in the right context.
Does it always suck when a player(s) does not make any attempt at contact with the audience, other than his/her playing? Not always, but it can be offputting to some more than others. I like Miles' music, and would loved to have seen him live (once would have been enough, I'm sure)...but my opinion of him as a human being is something else again, and it does influence my appreciation of him as a player. Didnt like HIM, loved/love his music.
It's unfortunate that alot of the jazz musicians didnt want to be diplomats of the music, or even of our country.
Some did, like Armstrong, Diz, Ellington, etc. But others were just on another level, that way...and to a degree, I understand why. Blame/hatred has been a creative fuel in about every human endeavor in history.

My .02,

S>
j

[Ed DeGenaro]

It makes sense to me because Miles would NEVER have tried to demonstrate ANY "showbiz" skills. His disdain for audiences, as well as fellow players, is well known. Ask Wynton Marsalis, no Satchmo either, how he was received by Miles back when he was getting started. No love loss there...for Miles, no love loss hardly anywhere. And it definitely translated to the stage.
To me, he'll always be the poster child of the holier than thou jazzbo...with a mean streak almost as visible as his creative genius. Think Spike Lee with a trumpet, and you get my drift.
And, I've seen Stern live. I'm not sure what you're driving at by including him in this discussion.
To me, jazz players with good stage presence are guys like Pat Metheny, Chick Corea, Herbie Hancock, Nat King Cole, Dizzy, Louis Armstrong, Oscar Peterson, Larry Carlton, George Benson, etc. Stern isnt on either side of the showbiz skill spectrum, IMO.
Alot of the earlier jazz players were quite animated and upbeat when playing live.
To be quite honest, I think drugs, especially Heroin, turned the whole thing around...at least the live "look" of the nodding out jazz player, totally introspective and totally on his own trip.

My .02,

S>
j
Except he turned that whole thing into his "Price Of Darkness" schtick. He's one of the most influential American musicians, and IMO he most certainly was concerned with reaching bigger and bigger audiences. So for my money yeah, sure as heck entertained. Whether he was up there shadow boxing like he was Joe Louis, or releasing CDs with instrumental versions of Human Nature or Time After Time...that to me is some one that has his "show biz skills" together.

Love him, love his music.

[TNJ]

See my edit, Ed.
Also, I'd like to be able to go back in time and ask Miles about his "Prince of Darkness" Schtick...I'd bet my ass would have been handed to me.
He'd tell me all about his "P.O.D." STICK, then show me the finer points of it's use for my personal entertainment...and his. :)

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.

S>
j

[Scott Miller]

Peggy Lee, another performing stoic. I don't think she was asking for supplication, though.

[Ed DeGenaro]

See my edit, Ed.
Also, I'd like to be able to go back in time and ask Miles about his "Prince of Darkness" Schtick...I'd bet my ass would have been handed to me.
STICK, maybe. :)

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.

S>
j
I have no issue with agreeing to disagree. I read your edit, and I really don't get it...how can you possibly view Miles as "holier than thou Jazzbo"...that to me is Wynton when he rails about Miles "not being Jazz" for taking his thing and going Pop for all intents and purposes.
We're talking about the Miles that on his last album had him go Hip-Hop...and Doo-Bop is one of my fave Miles CDs.

[TNJ]

I dont think Wynton liked Miles AT ALL.
Wynton cant say anything about the music Miles played, because Wynton himself is as accomplished in classical music as he is in jazz.
And, as for his brother Branford...well that guy is Mr. Pop when the mood suits him. (not dissing Branford, I love the guy and his music).
I think Miles dissing Wynton publicly when he was alive is something that has fuelled every negative thing Wynton's had to say about him since.
He knows Miles' place in history and wants to be a part of the lineage of great jazz trumpet players-innovators (Armstrong, Diz, Miles, Terry, Clifford Brown, Donald Davis, Arturo Sandoval, Bill Chase,Chet Baker, etc.)...and, IMO, he's done that.
The funny thing about Wynton, to me, is that he is so much LIKE Miles in terms of how he really looks at the world and his place in it. (in that aspect, I definitely agree with your 'holier than thou' mantle that Wynton occasionally wears.) I think he's got some resentment that Miles didnt legitimize him when he was still around. That must have stung.
Even with their similarities, Wynton just takes a more subtle approach in developing his career...and he's kept all that negativity and disdain dialled down. Miles, OTOH, never bothered. Wynton truly is not the high priest of Jazz...no one is. What does that even mean in this day and age? He's another keeper of the flame...and there are lots of others (even here at TGP) who share in that task.

Two different players, two different approaches...two examples of modern jazz legends and how they "impurely" did it. :)


S.
j

[KRosser]

Ken what does that have to do with it? I'd say it likely was inspiring. amazing, etc...but it has NOTHING to do wit Richard's initial point that if you wanna sell shit you gotta get an audience.

It has everything to do with it. If RichardB went to see Srinivas and the salient point he took away from it was that it was underattended then I'd say he's more likely part of the problem than the solution.

He should have known what to expect. I don't believe the customer is always right - you don't march into a five-star French restaurant and raise a huge stink because you can't get peanut butter & jelly. You don't buy tickets to a Srinivas concert and tell him how to entertain you. I'm sorry, I just don't roll that way. We may have to agree to disagree.

[Ed DeGenaro]

It has everything to do with it. If RichardB went to see Srinivas and the salient point he took away from it was that it was underattended then I'd say he's more likely part of the problem than the solution.

He should have known what to expect. I don't believe the customer is always right - you don't march into a five-star French restaurant and raise a huge stink because you can't get peanut butter & jelly. You don't buy tickets to a Srinivas concert and tell him how to entertain you. I'm sorry, I just don't roll that way. We may have to agree to disagree.
If it was I...and IF that is what I took away from it I would have to rethink why I'm leaving my couch.
However, if I left thinking amazing show, wished more folks had witness the amazingness of it all, and then go spread the word just to see the same results next time...then...well, then I get why I would post a rant about lacking show biz skills on TGP, I reckon.

As for not walking into the proverbial 5 start restaurant...now we're talking about expectation and intent. I'm guessing he had a pretty good idea of what to expect. If he was dissapointed that is issue. When h doesn't come back and the audience is 49, it's still his issue but it does affect the performer. And this my friend is why havin guitar players in the audience is sucking. :)

[kludge]

It's not just about the performer's attitude on stage.

I remember going to a Happy Apple (look them up!) cd release party a few years back and realizing they'd packed a good size venue with twenty- and thirty-something hipsters, and were subjecting them to a drums-bass-sax trio doing some really exotic, hardcore improvisation - and the audience was GROOVING on it. It's not just that they have a joyous stage presence, though. What matters is that their music is relevant. Happy Apple may be making hard-swinging jazz with traditional instruments, but their music sounds like the 21st century. It sounds like guys who love and play jazz, but grew up on Rush and Dr Dre, just like their audience.

The Bad Plus (which shares drummer Dave King with Happy Apple) went even farther in that direction. Happy Apple does 100% original music, but The Bad Plus, a traditional acoustic piano trio, does a lot of popular covers - just like Oscar Peterson did. Their swinging, snarky take of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is a revelation. And their version of "Iron Man" is brilliant - after throwing their whole rocking weight at the doom-laden riff, they reharmonize it in a major key. It's just mind-boggling, and perfect for someone like me who loves jazz but grew up on Black Sabbath.

The Bad Plus can draw really large audiences wherever they go. And the traditional jazz critics loathe them. They see them as sellouts, or just plain uppity. But back 50 years ago when jazz was still relevant, it riffed on popular music, morphing familiar tunes into new, improvised shapes and changing how the audience perceived what they already understood. How much jazz responds to popular music anymore? Bill Frisell, maybe. But mostly, it's either bland smooth jazz, or snobs that treat popular music as inferior to grownup stuff like jazz.

Even Happy Apple, doing purely original compositions, are riffing from rhythms and structures found in the music we already know and love. That's why they sound so modern, and can play such heady music while still relating effectively to a non-cogniscenti audience.

That's the problem with jazz today... not the stony faces. It's about relevance.

[TNJ]

I guess we could all simplify this when seeing a jazz artist/ensemble live:

1)How did the music hit you?

2)How did the artist(s) hit you?

3) Add up 1) and 2).

4)What's your total?

I can tell you, it will either be negative, a big 0, or positive...


S.
j

[DøøG]

the audiences are definitely there;
they clearly aren't derived from TGP members, though.
dt / spltrcl

Hey now, a few of us go to your shows!

Whaddawee, chopped livah?

[kludge]

Hey now, a few of us go to your shows!

Whaddawee, chopped livah?

+1. And when I saw splatt this spring, he looked pretty darn serious, except for that crazy hat!

[DøøG]

+1. And when I saw splatt this spring, he looked pretty darn serious, except for that crazy hat!
Ya know, all the pics from that tour he's had that hat on.......

I think it may have been surgically attached.......

[mike walker]

Then why prey tell wasn't there a mass pilgrimage to Torn's gigs when he posted them on here? All I see is lip service. I have yet to see musician's from here supporting other muso's in their gig endeavors around here.

I respect that as your experience Ed, but it's just not mine.
I've been in the audience and on stage all over Europe. Packed houses everywhere. Not a sequin or robotic dance in sight.

Interestingly, the only time it wasn't sold out was when i did a gig in Boston
with George Russell last month. About 300 in a 400 capacity arts centre.
So maybe we're talking demography here, and, not feeling qualified to comment on the specific situation in the states (tho i wonder how it differs from state to state) i'm gonna get the popcorn and enjoy the debate from the sidelines.

Great debate BTW.

Mike

[Scott Miller]

And the traditional jazz critics loathe them.

Mission accomplished! They loathed Cecil Taylor and Ornette Coleman too. You can't judge the state of jazz on what critics like.

[Ed DeGenaro]

I respect that as your experience Ed, but it's just not mine.
I've been in the audience and on stage all over Europe. Packed houses everywhere. Not a sequin or robotic dance in sight.

Interestingly, the only time it wasn't sold out was when i did a gig in Boston
with George Russell last month. About 300 in a 400 capacity arts centre.
So maybe we're talking demography here, and, not feeling qualified to comment on the specific situation in the states (tho i wonder how it differs from state to state) i'm gonna get the popcorn and enjoy the debate from the sidelines.

Great debate BTW.

Mike
Huh? You're referencing something than what you're quoting?

[Neill]

Then why prey tell wasn't there a mass pilgrimage to Torn's gigs when he posted them on here? All I see is lip service. I have yet to see musician's from here supporting other muso's in their gig endeavors around here.

i drove to montreal and back to toronto that day (a thursday) to see the show with the prezens band. besides meeting david, i met wayne eagles in the flesh that night too.

now, two people a 'drove' does not make, but i do know i support the artists on this board who i enjoy as best as i can, and so do others.

[shigihara]

The reality is I went and heard Srinivas a few yrs back at the Sydney Op House. The audience was about 50 people in a large hall. Embarrassingly small for one of India's greatest classical music masters.

I think those Indian mufkas need to start having introductions and need to start subscribing to this thread, and then eventually thanking me for rescuing their music from obscurity.


my reality is that i went to see/hear srinivas & debashish in paris last year
at a packed hall with about 1700 people... we also did a concert in cologne with shrinivas and our band early last year which had 1300 people attending
so i think india's music masters are doing just fine....

[shigihara]

I respect that as your experience Ed, but it's just not mine.
I've been in the audience and on stage all over Europe. Packed houses everywhere. Not a sequin or robotic dance in sight.

Mike


fwiw...my experience as well...

[Guitar Dave T]

Been to many gigs. I remember one where the Chick Corea electic band danced like robots in synch. I could hear a manager saying somewhere 'but you have to connect'.
You should have seen the look on the face of that audience. Think 'The Producers'.
Much walking out on that gig.
James Taylor has a great connection with his audience. It's very natural, unforced.
Problem is when people feel a need to 'communicate' to sell the product and the audience can smell a forced word from a mile away.
I think balance is the word here. I'm reminded of those that wear a grafted smile when they want to sell something. If you keep your eyes on them after you have declined the offer, the smile turns to whatever they were feeling before they made the play.
Don't try and play funky. Just play funky.

Mike

Somebody give the man a reward for "best balanced argument".

[jimfog]

In all seriousness, while we may not want Lorin Maazel coming out, with flash pots going off, shouting "Yo Detroit, we LOVE you!!!! How's everyone feeeeeling out there!??!?!?!?", here's an idea I think should be more prevalent..........

While I know this absolutely is hated by performers, the more "new", challenging and "serious" the music, the more important it is to have "meet and greet" Q and A type after-show events where the audience can get a little more up-close and personal with the artists, and get some perspective on the work.

Another way of making connection with your audience, without having to "showbiz" it up.

[Guitar Dave T]

Then why prey tell wasn't there a mass pilgrimage to Torn's gigs when he posted them on here? All I see is lip service. I have yet to see musician's from here supporting other muso's in their gig endeavors around here.

C'mon, Ed. Musicians don't really support live music; You know that.

Sure, we get a small group of local musicians at our shows when they have an early gig or a night off, and to them we are eternally grateful, but the vast majority of players, in my market at least, just don't go out on nights when they're not playing.

And I don't blame them. Frankly, I go out more often to payback other players who I see at my gigs than to hear new and interesting acts. There's just not time in the day when you're paddling as fast as you can, which many of us are nowadays.

[Ed DeGenaro]

my reality is that i went to see/hear srinivas & debashish in paris last year
at a packed hall with about 1700 people... we also did a concert in cologne with shrinivas and our band early last year which had 1300 people attending
so i think india's music masters are doing just fine....
Yes...that's because its Europe.

[Ken Ho]

My take on this........

It's not always enough to be right in this world. Sometimes it's worth taking a little time to be liked as well. Sometimes, to be liked, you ahve to compromise on being right.
That's something I had to learn. It's makes it easier to get your message heard.

[Bassomatic]

Problem is when people feel a need to 'communicate' to sell the product and the audience can smell a forced word from a mile away.

Ain't that the truth.

[KRosser]

My take on this........

It's not always enough to be right in this world. Sometimes it's worth taking a little time to be liked as well. Sometimes, to be liked, you ahve to compromise on being right.


OK, well here's an interesting angle on this discussion - because this is what irritates me about over-the-top stage antics, it often comes across as trying too hard to be liked, like the kid in the third grade cafeteria that wouldn't leave you alone until you laughed at him.

So, this thought just occured to me:

1) I assume we all want to be liked by some people

2) However, we all have lines we wouldn't cross just to get certain people to like us. Things we wouldn't be comfortable doing. Things that we just decide we don't need the approval that badly to warrant doing.

3) Why should performers be any different?

[Ed DeGenaro]

OK, well here's an interesting angle on this discussion - because this is what irritates me about over-the-top stage antics, it often comes across as trying too hard to be liked, like the kid in the third grade cafeteria that wouldn't leave you alone until you laughed at him.

So, this thought just occured to me:

1) I assume we all want to be liked by some people

2) However, we all have lines we wouldn't cross just to get certain people to like us. Things we wouldn't be comfortable doing. Things that we just decide we don't need the approval that badly to warrant doing.

3) Why should performers be any different?
Performers shouldn't and aren't per se...I'm just rolling with Richard's vamp FWIW.

[fugot]

you guys got 16 pages on this topic?? sweet!!!!!!!!

all i can think of is cowboy troy----the hip hop cowboy.

[RichardB]

My take on this........

It's not always enough to be right in this world. Sometimes it's worth taking a little time to be liked as well. Sometimes, to be liked, you ahve to compromise on being right.
That's something I had to learn. It's makes it easier to get your message heard.

Now that's the kind of stuff I am talking about. I am surprised that the "detractors" have been so stubbornly obtuse about this unsaid stuff. Anyone w/ any level of empathy and insight knows I wasn't talking about "how y'all FEEELING TOOOOOOOONIGHT" type stuff which many have been railing on about. Of course not. I am surprised I have had to spell it out.

We're talking (mostly) jazz here, as that is the area I am most qualified to hold forth on.Overt rock star theatrics have nothing to do w/ that mostly, which I took for granted that any idiot would know. apparently not, huh. I am talking about fostering warmth and communication between audience and players. Active "fostering", instead of the frosty distance between performers and listeners.
I think some of the guys doing this stuff on stage think that open warmth in some way deflates the "seriousness" of their music. Funny stuff, to me.

Also it needs to be added, that Chick Corea was the obne telling his band guys to put on a "show". His original idea for all his fusion things was to actively "reach out" to the audience. Anyone seen that vid of Chick w/ Elektrik where he is actually getting the crowd to sing along. He has done this also at smaller clubs etc etc.

[Ken Ho]

OK, well here's an interesting angle on this discussion - because this is what irritates me about over-the-top stage antics, it often comes across as trying too hard to be liked, like the kid in the third grade cafeteria that wouldn't leave you alone until you laughed at him.

So, this thought just occured to me:

1) I assume we all want to be liked by some people

2) However, we all have lines we wouldn't cross just to get certain people to like us. Things we wouldn't be comfortable doing. Things that we just decide we don't need the approval that badly to warrant doing.

3) Why should performers be any different?

Well, most of us want to be liked. I have a friend who is a specialist internal physician who is just fetermined to be right, regardless of whether people like him or not. Sadly, despite the fact that he is a wonderful guy, he off-sides many people withis single-mindedness and lack of open warmth. It's there, but you have to kinda dig for it. He's the one who made me realise that sometimes it's worth thinking about being liked.
While he is thinking about doing his absolute best for a patient, they are thinking he is an asshole.

Sure, there are lines you and I won't cross, no problem. Try getting me to prescribe drugs of dependency and see how high and frosty a wall can really be.
But, the best outcomes in life are always a result of negotiation.
Which is where the OP was coming from, I think.:banana:banana

[Bassomatic]

But what did you think of the music?

Perhaps the "sitar face" wasn't conveying enough audience-thrilling angst.

[Bassomatic]

Then why prey tell wasn't there a mass pilgrimage to Torn's gigs when he posted them on here? All I see is lip service. I have yet to see musician's from here supporting other muso's in their gig endeavors around here.

Well, there were only a couple of us at the Prezens show in New Haven (as far as i know), but he brought a friend, and I brought three, for a total of 6 that were there due to Torn's TGP announcement. Keep in mind the (packed) tiny venue only appeared to hold about 50 folks, so that over 10%. Not trivial, imo.:band

[jimfog]

I saw him at the Tea Room in Brooklyn...and brought my wife!!

Of course, she made us leave before the "good set" apparently......lol

[Bassomatic]

Another way of making connection with your audience, without having to "showbiz" it up.

It's a pretty good idea, but one could argue that anything that's not directly involved with writing, recording, or playing ones music is "showbizzing" it up.

[Bassomatic]

I am surprised that the "detractors" have been so stubbornly obtuse about this unsaid stuff. Anyone w/ any level of empathy and insight knows I wasn't talking about "how y'all FEEELING TOOOOOOOONIGHT" type stuff which many have been railing on about. Of course not. I am surprised I have had to spell it out.

We're talking (mostly) jazz here, as that is the area I am most qualified to hold forth on.Overt rock star theatrics have nothing to do w/ that mostly, which I took for granted that any idiot would know. apparently not, huh. I am talking about fostering warmth and communication between audience and players. Active "fostering", instead of the frosty distance between performers and listeners.

(Emphasis mine)
Here's what I don't get - the level of subtle and overt hostlity you keep expressing in your ironic thread about good vibes and sunshine.

Gotta call bullshit. Folks that politely, if insistently, disagree with your POV are stubbornly obtuse idiots? Your spirit of goodwill and fellowship is a bit underwhelming. If you can't play nice, you could at least refrain from the passive aggressive disses.

[jimfog]

It's a pretty good idea, but one could argue that anything that's not directly involved with writing, recording, or playing ones music is "showbizzing" it up.

Well, starving and sliding into irrelevance are always options, too.

[realityczech]

Take a look at any given musical myspace page.
If that aint self promotional showbiz shit I'll eat my memory chips!

[Bassomatic]

Well, starving and sliding into irrelevance are always options, too.

Who needs to slide? Most of us have never left, including many better men and women than us.

Seriously, though your idea would work in arts venues (and does) but would be a problem in the local clubs,typical rock and jazz venues, because of things like closing time and the need to sell much beer. At least around here.

[RichardB]

(Emphasis mine)
Here's what I don't get - the level of subtle and overt hostlity you keep expressing in your ironic thread about good vibes and sunshine.

Gotta call bullshit. Folks that politely, if insistently, disagree with your POV are stubbornly obtuse idiots? Your spirit of goodwill and fellowship is a bit underwhelming. If you can't play nice, you could at least refrain from the passive aggressive disses.

The quoted post above is born from exasperation at a few things:

1. The fact that people are talking about "rock star" antics as a sign of "communication", when anyone knows that this is not what I have been getting at at all. I shouldn't have to even type this. Of course we are talking about sincere communication. Of course we are talking about appropriate stage demeanour. Shouldn't need to be "said" and I find that having to "say" it is a sign that folks think I am an idiot.Well I am an idiot, but not quite that much of an idiot. This isn't HCentral, and I automatically assume a more elevated level of discourse where folks come to "the table" w/ a respectful view of those they debate with. I certainly do.

2. Ken's (and it seems others) view that classical music is not declining in popularity when every statistic I have ever heard and read says the exact opposite. But I am fully prepared to be shown I am wrong on that. I hope I am, and could someone comment on whether my facts are skew?

[jimfog]

Who needs to slide? Most of us have never left, including many better men and women than us.

Seriously, though your idea would work in arts venues (and does) but would be a problem in the local clubs,typical rock and jazz venues, because of things like closing time and the need to sell much beer. At least around here.

yeah....but how much seriously challenging new, out, or foreign music do you get at the typical bar or club? Very little.........and if you're playing that kind of venue, then, yeah, maybe you DO need to be a bit more outgoing and "showbiz".........after all, your job IS to sell beer.

So, my thought was more geared to the more artsy venues that feature something a wee bit left of center.

[Bassomatic]

The quoted post above is born from exasperation at a few things:

1. The fact that people are talking about "rock star" antics as a sign of "communication", when anyone knows that this is not what I have been getting at at all. I shouldn't have to even type this. Of course we are talking about sincere communication. Of course we are talking about appropriate stage demeanour. Shouldn't need to be "said" and I find that having to "say" it is a sign that folks think I am an idiot.Well I am an idiot, but not quite that much of an idiot. This isn't HCentral, and I automatically assume a more elevated level of discourse where folks come to "the table" w/ a respectful view of those they debate with. I certainly do.

Fair enough.

[TNJ]

Alot of thought provoking comments in this thread.
I believe that the bigger the fan one is of jazz...the more slack one will cut the performer(s). To the serious jazz fan, it's really about the music.
Ironically...I have a couple of friends who saw Miles play, and they loved the way Miles would turn his back on them and dis them to a degree. They thought it was part of the show...here comes that "Prince of Darkness" analogy again. :D
My point is...that, serious or not, if a jazz artist disdains his audience and plays righteous music in the process...chances are he/she will be given the license to do what they will onstage. It all becomes part of the show, which is pretty ironic when you think about it. But rule #1 is that the music must be right.
One other short point...the size of the venue counts here too. In a small, intimate setting, I think the music does take over and actually the players become irrelevant, or at least subservient to the music...maybe this is the way Miles and his ilk think. Move on into big auditoriums and stadiums, and the expectations of the audience become a bit theatrical. The visual side takes on a more important meaning when you have alot of distance between you and the performer.
Also, having a bit of dialogue now and then keeps at least a modicum of intimacy intact...acknowledgement of the audience and thanking them for being there doesnt take alot of pretense (unless you really DO hate them), and goes a long way towards keeping a cool vibe, IMO.

S.
j

[KRosser]

The quoted post above is born from exasperation at a few things:

1. The fact that people are talking about "rock star" antics as a sign of "communication", when anyone knows that this is not what I have been getting at at all. I shouldn't have to even type this. Of course we are talking about sincere communication.


Well, to be fair RichardB, you weren't very specific and we (meaning those of us who perform) have had to deal with audiences who seem to be unhappy with anything less than "rock star antics". Sometimes you have no choice but to let them go.

But no, of course, sincere and appropriate communication is great. It helps draw audiences in. It's a good thing. I get that.

However - there are some artists that aren't very good at that. You seem to feel they shouldn't be performing. I disagree. Bill Frisell has always looked uncomfortable communicating onstage, moreso ten years ago or earlier, yet I'm really glad he performs anyway - just to use one example. And he has a loyal, growing audience that bears with him through it.

To be fair, the Frisell you see onstage now is practically Michael Jackson-esque in his onstage extroversion compared to the early days of seeing him...

And on the flip side, the one time I saw Wynton Marsalis back in the mid/late 80's I walked out because his lecturing to the audience like they were third graders at an assembly on 'jazz day' was so irritating. (Well, I wasn't really digging the music either, so there was that...)

To use an extreme example - Tom Harrell, who suffers from advanced schizophrenia, has to take so much medicaton to get onstage he's literally catatonic - he stares down at the floor and stands there like a statue. I'm sure glad he's continued to perform though, because in the half-dozen times I've heard him he's never sounded less than angelic when he puts the trumpet to his mouth. I don't think he's 'bad for jazz' even though watching him onstage can be a downright jarring experience. Every time Harrell plays a note he does something for the good for jazz, as far as I'm concerned.

And how about another extreme who I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet, surprisingly - Keith Jarrett, who is not only as serious as a heart attack but notoriously confrontational to downright insulting to his audiences - and is one of the few living jazz artists that can sell out a major symphonic concert hall every time without making any attempt to make the music 'more approachable'. In fact, it'd be difficult to name someone more stubbornly uncompromising - and here he is, one of the premier concert draws of the music.

So much for being bad for jazz' popularity.

I'm not asserting a conclusion opposite of yours; I'm asserting that no conculsion can be drawn re: the relationship between performance 'style' alone and market share, especially in niche 'art' markets like jazz, classical or world music, etc....


Of course we are talking about appropriate stage demeanour. Shouldn't need to be "said" and I find that having to "say" it is a sign that folks think I am an idiot.Well I am an idiot, but not quite that much of an idiot. This isn't HCentral, and I automatically assume a more elevated level of discourse where folks come to "the table" w/ a respectful view of those they debate with. I certainly do.


I don't think anyone here called you an idiot, I certainly didn't. I just don't agree with you. There are people whose stage demeanor works for them. There are people whose stage demeanor works against them. For every audience member this is going to be different, though. I don't see a systemic issue at work. At all. For me, it's just about the music ultimately - though for me as stage demeanors go, I'd rather performers err on the side of being too serious than too Vegas, if I have to pick an extreme. To each his own.

If every performing standard were the same what a boring world this would be.

Hopefully this addresses my feelings in a way you find non-confrontational.

2. Ken's (and it seems others) view that classical music is not declining in popularity when every statistic I have ever heard and read says the exact opposite. But I am fully prepared to be shown I am wrong on that. I hope I am, and could someone comment on whether my facts are skew?

The three articles you cited absolutely didn't say that conclusively. I'm wondering how discerning you are about that information. Every statistic I've seen has held classical music at 3%-5% market share for the last 40 years on average, fairly steadily. At the bottom of that curve there will always be stories in the paper with artistic directors venting their worries...and then it comes back around. This happens every other year in the LA Times. I don't think that's conclusive information by itself.

Also, due to economic factors, all live performance is having more difficult time, from shrinking audience budgets to outrageous travel expenses. Some of this is cyclical. But there are audiences out there still that will come out...of this I have no doubt.

[Bassomatic]

I'm not asserting a conclusion opposite of yours; I'm asserting that no conculsion can be drawn re: the relationship between performance 'style' alone and market share, especially in niche 'art' markets like jazz, classical or world music, etc....

This is very succinctly put, and a spot-on representation of the POV I was trying to get across. Well done, sir!

[JazzHessian]

This is very succinctly put, and a spot-on representation of the POV I was trying to get across. Well done, sir!

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

[daddyo]

I think audiences are fickle.

[splatt]

Hey now, a few of us go to your shows!

Whaddawee, chopped livah?
no, not at all!
more like truffles, or absinthe, or..... unicorns.
8-)

all's i meant was that TGP-members in my audiences
usually count for between about 0-5 beings;
actually, it's mostly 0-2.


The Bad Plus (which shares drummer Dave King with Happy Apple) went even farther in that direction. Happy Apple does 100% original music, but The Bad Plus, a traditional acoustic piano trio, does a lot of popular covers - just like Oscar Peterson did. Their swinging, snarky take of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is a revelation. And their version of "Iron Man" is brilliant - after throwing their whole rocking weight at the doom-laden riff, they reharmonize it in a major key. It's just mind-boggling, and perfect for someone like me who loves jazz but grew up on Black Sabbath.


That's the problem with jazz today... not the stony faces. It's about relevance.

i'm glad you brought them up, here:
1) 'cuz i dig them,
2) 'cuz they're my friends; i'm currently finishing up a cd
from the band, "buffalo collision"
(ethan iverson, dave king, hank roberts & tim berne), &
3) because i think they're relevant to this discussion, as well.

of course, the bp certainly does
have & employ a certain, very particular kinda schtick;
personally, i could find their tongue-not-quite-in-cheek,
referential post-modernist humor a bit grating, but i don't:
because the humor (& ethan's attendant, engaging schtick) has a serious side to it,
& they're quite serious about that very humor (&, the schtick):
there's..... errrrmmm..... musical weight behind it, imo.

but:
as the word "relevance" has now
found its way into this conversation
(about "creative" music),
it may focus the discussion
upon the moving-target of a vague spot
on that "slippery slope" that i'd brought up, earlier.
it's a dangerous game, as goes mutual understandings
between (relative) strangers-in-the-net.

from my POV, i'd like to note that
some specific "movements" in music
--- in any "art", as it were ---
are not considered "relevant" until some time passes,
and their effects upon popular culture
have seeped-into (rather than clobber)
the populace-at-large.
some things take time,
& the grey areas seem waaaay larger-looming to me
than our desire for clear & simple blacks'n'whites.....
dt / spltrcl

[JazzHessian]

audiences are fickle.

Water is wet, the sky is blue, and so on.

[DøøG]

The Bad Plus (which shares drummer Dave King with Happy Apple) went even farther in that direction. Happy Apple does 100% original music, but The Bad Plus, a traditional acoustic piano trio, does a lot of popular covers - just like Oscar Peterson did. Their swinging, snarky take of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is a revelation. And their version of "Iron Man" is brilliant - after throwing their whole rocking weight at the doom-laden riff, they reharmonize it in a major key. It's just mind-boggling, and perfect for someone like me who loves jazz but grew up on Black Sabbath.

Another artist that takes fairly recent tunes and "jazzes" em up is Rachel Z, really good stuff. She does the "Teen Spirit", U2's "One", "Come as you Are", "Imagine", lotsa others. And it's not tongue in cheek either. Saw her with a trio (she plays keyboards) a couple of years back, really great. She was touring with Peter Gabriel a few years back......

IRON MAN?!?!? They beat me to it! lol!! I was planning to work that up with the club band, but change it around a bit. We've been messing with that one and it really sounds promising.........

[KRosser]

In all seriousness, while we may not want Lorin Maazel coming out, with flash pots going off, shouting "Yo Detroit, we LOVE you!!!! How's everyone feeeeeling out there!??!?!?!?", here's an idea I think should be more prevalent..........

While I know this absolutely is hated by performers, the more "new", challenging and "serious" the music, the more important it is to have "meet and greet" Q and A type after-show events where the audience can get a little more up-close and personal with the artists, and get some perspective on the work.

Another way of making connection with your audience, without having to "showbiz" it up.

Many symphonies have 'pre-show' programs much to that effect...and yeah, I think it's a great way to bring the audience in.

[KRosser]

The Bad Plus (which shares drummer Dave King with Happy Apple) went even farther in that direction. Happy Apple does 100% original music, but The Bad Plus, a traditional acoustic piano trio, does a lot of popular covers - just like Oscar Peterson did. Their swinging, snarky take of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is a revelation. And their version of "Iron Man" is brilliant - after throwing their whole rocking weight at the doom-laden riff, they reharmonize it in a major key. It's just mind-boggling, and perfect for someone like me who loves jazz but grew up on Black Sabbath.


I gotta admit, I cracked up out loud the first time I heard their version of "Iron Man" but now when it comes on I skip back and replay "Cheney Pinata" or "Velouria"...

[Dave Klausner]

no, not at all!
more like truffles, or absinthe, or..... unicorns.
8-)

all's i meant was that TGP-members in my audiences
usually count for between about 0-5 beings;
actually, it's mostly 0-2.

It was at least 2 in Ann Arbor! And regarding showmanship, there was enough going on musically on the stage (OK, stage "area") that fire breathing would have been a redundant distraction.

2) 'cuz they're my friends; i'm currently finishing up a cd
from the band, "buffalo collision"
(ethan iverson, dave king, hank roberts & tim berne), &


Say hello to Hank for me!

[Bryan T]

Many symphonies have 'pre-show' programs much to that effect...and yeah, I think it's a great way to bring the audience in.

Absolutely. I heard the LA Phil with Bramwell Tovey conducting. Prior to the performance he gave some context for the work, discussed interesting instrumentation, and greatly decreased the distance between the audience and the music.

Bryan

[DøøG]

And thanx guys for the turn on to the Bad Plus, totally dig em! Bought a couple offa the Itunes......

[atquinn]

I disagree. Bill Frisell has always looked uncomfortable communicating onstage, moreso ten years ago or earlier, yet I'm really glad he performs anyway - just to use one example. And he has a loyal, growing audience that bears with him through it.

To be fair, the Frisell you see onstage now is practically Michael Jackson-esque in his onstage extroversion compared to the early days of seeing him...


"I can't see you.... but I can hear you........... I can feel you.........

.......Thank you...."

I always loved that part of his Live album :D; haven't gotten a chance to actually see him live yet though :(

-Austin

[lhallam]

To chime in concerning humor and jazz.

Miles was offstage observing a very outside live jam by Dave Holland, Tony Williams & Wayne Shorter (not sure of personnel except Dave). Miles walked on and whispered to Dave "You guys is crazy".

What I got from that was they were taking themselves only so serious and screwing with the audience to a degree.

The idea of portraying the performance as something very serious, pushing it to the limit and yet driving people nuts is funny on a number of levels.

I do find humor in stuff like Tony Williams "Emergency" release and/or some of Sun Ra just because it's so nutz.

[Scott Miller]

Sun Ra. Now, that's a combination of totally wacked-out jazz and fabulous entertainment. Costumes, dancers, a body builder comes out and does some flexing, they jump around in the audience... great stuff.

I would guess, however, that for a lot of the audience, the entertainment aspects would have a limited impact; they might stick around for an extra 20 minutes to see the dancers, but too much alto sax squeek and squornk is eventually going to make them feel like they're being asked to supplicate, and drive them off.

[Frankenstrat2]

Far be it for me to comment on the state of Jazz past or present. I confess I didn't read all 18 pages of this raging controversy, but its nice to see some passion here in something other than a Dumble thread.
The only thing that crossed my mind while reading some of this thread was the old Frank Zappa quote:
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny".

[kludge]

of course, the bp certainly does
have & employ a certain, very particular kinda schtick;
personally, i could find their tongue-not-quite-in-cheek,
referential post-modernist humor a bit grating, but i don't:
because the humor (& ethan's attendant, engaging schtick) has a serious side to it,
& they're quite serious about that very humor (&, the schtick):
there's..... errrrmmm..... musical weight behind it, imo.

but:
as the word "relevance" has now
found its way into this conversation
(about "creative" music),
it may focus the discussion
upon the moving-target of a vague spot
on that "slippery slope" that i'd brought up, earlier.
it's a dangerous game, as goes mutual understandings
between (relative) strangers-in-the-net.

from my POV, i'd like to note that
some specific "movements" in music
--- in any "art", as it were ---
are not considered "relevant" until some time passes,
and their effects upon popular culture
have seeped-into (rather than clobber)
the populace-at-large.
some things take time,
& the grey areas seem waaaay larger-looming to me
than our desire for clear & simple blacks'n'whites.....
dt / spltrcl

You're producing them? Dang, I'm looking forward to hearing THAT! :RoCkIn

I agree with you that the Bad Plus employ some degree of schtick but back it with real musical muscle. What I find interesting, though, is that Happy Apple can play 100% original music, without the postmodern covers schtick, yet accomplish much the same frisson and vibe. And it's not just Dave King's influence either, because I've seen other modern jazz bands pull it off. That's where I think relevance comes into play - not in whether the music is important, but rather whether the audience can relate to it. There's something deep and fundamental in the rhythms of popular music that these bands can reach - something that connects them to the audience. The more "serious" jazz bands fail to make that connection, and thus aren't relevant to modern audiences - they don't relate to our own experiences.

Steve Smith talks about this sometimes. He says that every generation and culture grows up with a certain kind of music, and we understand "our" music instinctively. Music of other cultures and generations, we have to learn to understand and appreciate. Happy Apple (and the Bad Plus), for all their heady intelligence, are still tapping into the deep structure of Generation X music.

I remember back in the 1980s, I was in my early 20s. I had an intellectual appreciation for jazz, but my heart was given to post-punk and aggressive prog like King Crimson. I could listen to, say, Pat Metheny, and realize it was "good", but I couldn't love it. Then I found MY jazz. It was Cloud About Mercury, still one of my favorite albums ever. And Steve Tibbetts' Exploded View, and Marc Ribot's Rootless Cosmopolitans, and Power Tools' (Bill Frisell's) Strange Meeting. I could hear the rock in it all. The distorted guitars, the angular rhythms, the loops... it made sense to me in a way that straight fusion did not.

That's what I mean by relevance, I think. It's not just about understanding, it's about shared experience. When I listen to Wynton Marsalis, it's like visiting a foreign country. When I listen to Happy Apple, it's like going home.

[RichardB]

Well, to be fair RichardB, you weren't very specific and we (meaning those of us who perform) have had to deal with audiences who seem to be unhappy with anything less than "rock star antics". Sometimes you have no choice but to let them go.

But no, of course, sincere and appropriate communication is great. It helps draw audiences in. It's a good thing. I get that.

However - there are some artists that aren't very good at that. You seem to feel they shouldn't be performing. I disagree. Bill Frisell has always looked uncomfortable communicating onstage, moreso ten years ago or earlier, yet I'm really glad he performs anyway - just to use one example. And he has a loyal, growing audience that bears with him through it.

To be fair, the Frisell you see onstage now is practically Michael Jackson-esque in his onstage extroversion compared to the early days of seeing him...

And on the flip side, the one time I saw Wynton Marsalis back in the mid/late 80's I walked out because his lecturing to the audience like they were third graders at an assembly on 'jazz day' was so irritating. (Well, I wasn't really digging the music either, so there was that...)

To use an extreme example - Tom Harrell, who suffers from advanced schizophrenia, has to take so much medicaton to get onstage he's literally catatonic - he stares down at the floor and stands there like a statue. I'm sure glad he's continued to perform though, because in the half-dozen times I've heard him he's never sounded less than angelic when he puts the trumpet to his mouth. I don't think he's 'bad for jazz' even though watching him onstage can be a downright jarring experience. Every time Harrell plays a note he does something for the good for jazz, as far as I'm concerned.

And how about another extreme who I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet, surprisingly - Keith Jarrett, who is not only as serious as a heart attack but notoriously confrontational to downright insulting to his audiences - and is one of the few living jazz artists that can sell out a major symphonic concert hall every time without making any attempt to make the music 'more approachable'. In fact, it'd be difficult to name someone more stubbornly uncompromising - and here he is, one of the premier concert draws of the music.

So much for being bad for jazz' popularity.

I'm not asserting a conclusion opposite of yours; I'm asserting that no conculsion can be drawn re: the relationship between performance 'style' alone and market share, especially in niche 'art' markets like jazz, classical or world music, etc....



I don't think anyone here called you an idiot, I certainly didn't. I just don't agree with you. There are people whose stage demeanor works for them. There are people whose stage demeanor works against them. For every audience member this is going to be different, though. I don't see a systemic issue at work. At all. For me, it's just about the music ultimately - though for me as stage demeanors go, I'd rather performers err on the side of being too serious than too Vegas, if I have to pick an extreme. To each his own.

If every performing standard were the same what a boring world this would be.

Hopefully this addresses my feelings in a way you find non-confrontational.



The three articles you cited absolutely didn't say that conclusively. I'm wondering how discerning you are about that information. Every statistic I've seen has held classical music at 3%-5% market share for the last 40 years on average, fairly steadily. At the bottom of that curve there will always be stories in the paper with artistic directors venting their worries...and then it comes back around. This happens every other year in the LA Times. I don't think that's conclusive information by itself.

Also, due to economic factors, all live performance is having more difficult time, from shrinking audience budgets to outrageous travel expenses. Some of this is cyclical. But there are audiences out there still that will come out...of this I have no doubt.

Ken,

sensible post with which I mostly agree! Thanks....

Still don't know about the classical music thing though, haven't a number of orchestras closed up shop fairly recently. Also I recall many classical radio stations going down. I really would be interested to get some solid evidence on this.
My feeling, experientially based, is that interest is falling in classical and jazz....but that is just my experience....