|
|
Post by punter on Jun 11, 2009 20:43:42 GMT 10
t it is a relatively new idea (found in very late Romanticism, modernism and post-modernism i.e. not much more than 100 years old) that a real artist is only ever wholly serious, and does nothing for fun. I don't know about that... there are so many examples of modernism and post modernism that are fun (and that succeed as art as well as entertainment) I mean what about Dada, what about Fluxus, what about La Monte Young? The list goes on. Difference is James makes albums like Scream Machine (and many others) to pander to a market for the most rigid, boring, and conservative idea of what jazz is, that's not my idea of fun (whereas feeding a bail of hay to the piano is fucking hilarious). But to be honest I don't really have a problem with James, I'm sure he is a smart guy and a nice guy and I have heard his trombone playing and liked it. My problem is with his success, which, to me reinforces a cliched and boring idea of what jazz is and can be, while our great Australian improvising musicians (like Slater, Tinkler, McMahon, Buck, to name just a few) are pretty much ignored. On a lighter note in response to Utensils... how great is Arve Henrikson? I've been getting into Sakuteiki lately, wow! |
|
|
|
Post by utensils on Jun 11, 2009 23:25:02 GMT 10
On a lighter note in response to Utensils... how great is Arve Henrikson? I've been getting into Sakuteiki lately, wow! Yes, beautiful album. He's got two others released on that label (names escape me right now I'm a bit.....) and a new one on ECM which are all just as great. |
|
gator
Full Member
Posts: 203
|
Post by gator on Jun 12, 2009 10:30:52 GMT 10
Well he (James) is a very astute guy. For one thing he's good enough for us to be talking about his playing and his aesthetic . For another he is successful and and certainly in public at least, an appealing character with a witty turn of phrase.
His success is due to a certain myopia/vision that accommodates the playing of ones instrument to a virtuosic level with widespread recognition. This certainly isn't new in popular music but it historically, can be costly to one's awareness to and empathy with,the visions and directions of others. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not into the wholesale condemnation of James' success because it's as pointless as condemning everything that we may not like about the world. The best political statement one can make for or against the principles behind that success is to articulate ones own music and visions as well as you can.
Having said that, I've seen him play on a number of occasions and while there is something absolutely astounding about his musicianship, there is, for me, nothing phenomenal about the music itself - which I guess leads one to the question; Is virtuosic playing great music? And if its not great music - is it indeed , great playing?
|
|
|
|
Post by punter on Jun 12, 2009 11:38:06 GMT 10
it's as pointless as condemning everything that we may not like about the world. The best political statement one can make for or against the principles behind that success is to articulate ones own music and visions as well as you can. Is virtuosic playing great music? And if its not great music - is it indeed , great playing? Why not do both: condemn what you don't like about the world AND articulate your own vision. Of the arts, only in music is virtuosity considered an end in itself. Jazz is particularly held back as an art form because too many people think that it's enough to 'play great' (i.e. idiomatically correctly). In answer to your closing questions: It can be but virtuosity does not EQUAL great music. And, not necessarily. |
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Jun 12, 2009 11:56:13 GMT 10
Why not do both: condemn what you don't like about the world AND articulate your own vision. Personally, I find the idea that any aspect of music-making might need to be "condemned" as odd to say the very least. Perhaps I could see it if music was being directly used to incite violence or war (which it can be). Other than that, artists (including James Morrison) simply communicate with people willing to listen to them. No-one who doesn't wish to listen is forced to. What's to "condemn"? I do hate to say it, but there is a faint smell of fascism/totalitarianism in such an idea Punter (the Nazis and Stalin were pretty good at "condemning" art and for that matter artists themselves). Holding your own opinion is one thing, but wishing to "condemn" those who disagree is scary. Lighten up a bit maybe? At its very least James's music is amongst the more benign things around. Save your condemnation for what is truly pernicious, not the simple giving of pleasure to others. If sometimes people wish to enjoy virtuosity for its own sake, they have every right. Build your own audience and stop resenting his, that's my advice. |
|
gator
Full Member
Posts: 203
|
Post by gator on Jun 12, 2009 12:49:15 GMT 10
Why not do both: condemn what you don't like about the world AND articulate your own vision. I guess its because one tries to support one's vision with one's actions and there's not enough of that going on. Conversely there's plenty of sideliners crowing about what they like and dont like and why...look at Stanley Crouch. True - Im not against verbal dissent -that can be an art form itself. Condemnation comes in many guises, and art, even bad art probably deserves it the least out of all human activity, but strong and passionate opinions should be expressed as long as there is a responsive and gestural context for it. . If I adopted an intolerant approach to music making and the motives for it I wouldn't be able to communicate with many of my students for instance. I have students whose playing 'shits' me , not because it's bad musicianship, but because aesthetically it irritates me. But I can only make my views known through my own human experience, occasionally adopt the inverse perspective and very occasionally 'lose it' when my tolerance is pushed over the edge by factors other than aesthetics. What I have to keep in mind is that every individual, whether it be James Morrison or a first year uni trumpet player is on a journey, and the biggest mistake I can make is to condemn that journey as a result of how I feel it affects me and my journey. My main concern as a teacher is whether to guide that journey as a mentor or attempt to transform it through my own actions as a practitioner. Rightly or wrongly I tend to view the world that way. |
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Jun 12, 2009 13:05:12 GMT 10
I like your world view Gator, without "condemning" Punter's, which I merely like less. Just adopting the language of "preferences" here. Better - in my humble opinion - than the language of militancy.
|
|
|
|
Post by punter on Jun 12, 2009 20:09:16 GMT 10
Hey I didn't use the word 'condemn' I just responded to someone else's post and the reference to fascism is drawing a bit of a long bow Mark dontcha think? I mean just because I can't stand JM's music doesn't mean I think his CDs should be burned or worse. I think it's important to talk about art and about what's good and what's awful and why. The difference between a free society and a totalitarian society is not that the absence or otherwise of condemnation; a free society is, as the saying goes, one in which it is not dangerous to express one's views freely.
I could lighten up I guess but I probably won't. James' music is harmless enough... we embrace it precisely because it doesn’t challenge us in any way, because James fits in with the Australian idea of a fun loving outdoorsy sporting nation – if trumpet were in the Olympics he’d probably win a gold medal.
But the politics of 'Australian-ness' are not simple or straightforward, and there is darkness here (not news to anyone I'm sure). I guess when I really break it down this is what I'm on about here, but enough of my heavy rantings...
|
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Jun 12, 2009 20:21:47 GMT 10
The difference between a free society and a totalitarian society is not that the absence or otherwise of condemnation; a free society is, as the saying goes, one in which it is not dangerous to express one's views freely. Well said. And I probably did draw a long bow, though I think certain forms of artistic and political "correctness" are sometimes proto-fascist and I find some artists' attitude to "entertainment" distasteful, as much for the fact that it's inconsistent (Kenny G's music would not be the object of such scorn from jazzers except for the fact that he plays an instrument they think they own, the soprano sax. What G does is no more cheesy than scores of other MOR "pop" instrumentalists, why does no-one pick on a cheesy pianist like Richard Clayderman?) Thank God it doesn't yet seem to be dangerous for me also to express my views freely, though one can lose a friend at worst it seems. |
|
gator
Full Member
Posts: 203
|
Post by gator on Jun 12, 2009 21:47:54 GMT 10
Hey I didn't use the word 'condemn' I just responded to someone else's post and the reference to fascism is drawing a bit of a long bow Mark dontcha think? I mean just because I can't stand JM's music doesn't mean I think his CDs should be burned or worse. I think it's important to talk about art and about what's good and what's awful and why. The difference between a free society and a totalitarian society is not that the absence or otherwise of condemnation; a free society is, as the saying goes, one in which it is not dangerous to express one's views freely. I could lighten up I guess but I probably won't. James' music is harmless enough... we embrace it precisely because it doesn’t challenge us in any way, because James fits in with the Australian idea of a fun loving outdoorsy sporting nation – if trumpet were in the Olympics he’d probably win a gold medal. But the politics of 'Australian-ness' are not simple or straightforward, and there is darkness here (not news to anyone I'm sure). I guess when I really break it down this is what I'm on about here, but enough of my heavy rantings... Its "good dark" though Punter Rant on.... |
|
|
|
Post by aj on Jun 12, 2009 21:55:47 GMT 10
The difference between a free society and a totalitarian society is not that the absence or otherwise of condemnation; a free society is, as the saying goes, one in which it is not dangerous to express one's views freely. Well said. And I probably did draw a long bow, though I think certain forms of artistic and political "correctness" are sometimes proto-fascist and I find some artist's attitude to "entertainment" distasteful, as much for the fact that it's inconsistent (Kenny G's music would not be the object of such scorn from jazzers except for the fact that he plays an instrument they think they own, the soprano sax. What G does is no more cheesy than scores of other MOR "pop" instrumentalists, why does no-one pick on a cheesy pianist like Richard Clayderman?) Thank God it doesn't yet seem to be dangerous for me also to express my views freely, though one can lose a friend at worst it seems. I hate Clayderman and his muzak too! My objections to Kenny G are : * he apparently plays golf off about a 2 handicap (bastard!) * some people actually think that because he plays the soprano, he IS a jazz musician........if his music was promoted as muzak, I don't think many jazz fans would give him a second thought |
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Jun 13, 2009 10:59:03 GMT 10
My objections to Kenny G are......some people actually think that because he plays the soprano, he IS a jazz musician........ You can't police that of course. I'm not aware of anybody who thinks that Kenny G is jazz, but I'm sure you're right and they exist. I'm obviously not wholly immune from defending my turf either, but in the end what are you going to do about it? Forbid him to play the soprano because some people get confused about what jazz is thereby? I'm being facetious of course but that's why I played that heavy-handed "fascist" card to Punter, not to call him or her a fascist of course, but because that's where this slippery slope ends. However, I don't think that because something is used as Muzak, that it is Muzak and no more than that. A lot of things can be used as Muzak, I've heard Paul Desmond used that way and Mozart for that matter. Kenny G is MOR instrumental pop music, and while a higher proportion of that genre can be used as Muzak compared to others, it's not fair to characterise it only as Muzak. No-one listens to Muzak, but people do listen to Kenny G and Richard Clayderman and get what they want from it. I've often said it, personally I'd rather listen to MOR pop like Kenny G or Andrew Lloyd Webber than certain pretentious kinds of indie rock and some other mainstream "alternative" genres. There's actually comparatively more musicianship in MOR pop, always has been that way whether it was BBC "light music" or whatever. Getting back to Punter and Morrison. From what I understand of his or her argument, Punter's beef is the fact that James Morrison's "higher-faster-louder" stuff starts to define jazz trumpet in people's mind and (say) another trumpeter who plays in a different, more understated way might have to butt up against that conception/comparison. Unfortunately, I can only say "tough titties" to that. In a not dissimilar way, Oscar Peterson defined a sort of bullish, unrelenting, fleet-footed, two-fisted swing as the benchmark for popular jazz piano and achieved an enormous audience doing so. I can't play like that and I'll never achieve Oscar's audience but at the same time I think it would be tawdry of me to start whinging about Oscar (RIP) or local exponents of that style such as Joe Chindamo defining a benchmark for jazz piano that doesn't include the way I play. I reckon just get on and do it and find your audience, if it's inevitably smaller that's the way it is. At the point that I can not only refuse to object to but can celebrate the success of someone (even on my instrument) who has - and always will have - a bigger audience than me (whatever their aesthetic or lack thereof) begins my real integrity as an artist. |
|
