What do Jazz critics do?

[trumpetguy]

admin said:

trumpetguy said:

admin said:

Is that manipulative language???(I don't believe such extreme responses were even remotely implied)

Huh? Extreme? Me was just having fun! Did you think the "you" in "you don't know your craft" was supposed to be YOU or something? I don't even know you! It was a generic "you".

I thought I gave an intelligent, colourful and honest response to your intelligent post. If that makes me "extreme" so be it!

Ahh, the problems of electronic communication.
I didn't mean you were extreme - what I meant was that the responses by an audience mentioned in reply to a bitter slow ballad were extreme.
I was just trying to point out that the way a set is constructed and the act of playing music are 2 very different things - of course you can devise a set to appeal to an audience but I really think that when playing music all attention is given to that act and not towards invoking emotive response.
Also, I didn't think you were referring to anybody in particular re the craft bit - in fact the only part of that statement I was responding to was the "shakin', rockin', smilin' and groovin' to your most bitter slowest ballad " bit.
Sure is easy to have what is intended in a post misinterpreted sometimes - that's computers for ya.

[isaacs]

No worries trumpetguy. Gotcha now.

[gator]

We use the word "Art" - in a most reverend way - when the word 'artifice' denotes skill, manipulation, and is associated with deceit and trickery.
In Europe, as a musician I was referred to as an 'Artiste' purely on the grounds of being a performer. That is a an acknowledgement of one's skill and professional bearing that is an endearing part of the European attitude to music. So as an artist, you make art. Whether its good art or not is another question. One ,which I'm going to venture, is not within the individual artists ability to define.To see oneself as a 'great' artist is to assume that ones performance touches the highest sensibilities of humanity.(Thats how history defines great art anyway)
When in truth we can take care of our integrity as performers to do the thing we love doing as best we can....calling ourselves artists is just a way of saying,"I play". We all make art - its quality is up for grabs..

[isaacs]

While I have tried to refute the art/entertainment paradigm, I confess I am actually quite subject to it - in great part through self-infliction. I have come to realise that I actually sabotage my music by holding an image of myself as an "artist" (in the sense ironguts means it). I am supported in this self-sabotage by much of the arts industry - critics, commentators, presenters, fellow musicians etc who subscribe to that arts/entertainment turf-war.

This was brought sharply into focus by my attendance at the Herbie Hancock show (and I use that word deliberately) in Sydney last week. I remarked to a distinguished colleague that it was probably the best thing I have seen - ever. I didn’t mean that it was necessarily the greatest music I have seen – its impact was also in the way the music was approached. More on that later.

I find when I sit down to the piano to improvise freely - as I am currently doing at 8am every morning - I tend to be drawn to two musical flavours and moods that actually in themselves represent a very narrow spectrum of music. I notice the same tendency in many other contemporary “artistic” improvisers, particularly when called on to make an uncompromisingly personal statement, as is the case with solo piano improv.

I tend to default to articulating either a morose impressionism or a propulsive but abstract linear kineticism. These seem to be “safe areas” to go in contemporary jazz-based instrumental music and still be “artistic” (sullen European or angry Black American to put it into crude stereotypes. Or just - sullen or angry - to drop the unnecessary and perhaps provocative profiling). But I realise in automatically reaching for these defaults – perhaps to unconsciously assure myself that I am an “artist” – I am actually being dishonest in suppressing other parts of myself. I also realise I am getting a bit sick of music like that, including my own.

If I could label the emotional area that I am excluding in all this, I’d say it’s a kind of simple, unabashed and exhilarative joy. In my jazz-based musical makeup I find this can be best expressed through gospel/soul or mainstream swing framings. However: these are a key hallmark of “entertainers” in jazz-based music and so using them in a relatively unadulterated way might be perceived (or self-perceived) as saying – with a cheesy grin – “I’m an entertainer”. So better to stay away and be sure of being an artist. (None of this is conscious. My suspicion is this is happening unconsciously in me at times).

What was great about Herbie Hancock and Vinnie Colaiuta (not to demean the other two band members but those guys drove the thing) is that they didn’t give a fuck about that shit. Them not giving a fuck stayed with me as much as the music and I want to hold to it to inspire me. It was its own form of “confrontation” ironguts. A different kind of defiance. Daring to have the common touch. Daring to be cheesy. To play pop along with the deepest complexity. Confronting stuffy suffocating notions of “art”. Is it jazz? Is it pop? Is it soul? Is it art? Who gives a fuck! You don’t think it’s art? Who gives a fuck what you think? Was some of it cheesy? Probably. Cheese is cheesy. And pretty cool too.

Herbie was incredible but so was Vinnie (I don’t say that just because he’s on my new record). Hanging with him afterwards, we spoke about how much effort is involved in “avoiding the obvious”. And how obvious the music sounds if you do that. And how surprisingly fresh it can be if you take your attention entirely off avoiding the obvious and allow the obvious (which is in all of us) to filter through and be personalised, as will happen of its own accord. Herbie and Vinnie sounded both utterly brilliant and like nobody else. They also played many completely obvious things. Poppy things. And they were both entertaining and great entertainers. And great artists. With a massive audience. And all that inspires me.

[Kenny]

admin said:

If I could label the emotional area that I am excluding in all this, I’d say it’s a kind of simple, unabashed and exhilarative joy. In my jazz-based musical makeup I find this can be best expressed through a gospel/soul or mainstream swing framings. However: these are a key hallmark of “entertainers” in jazz-based music and so using them in a relatively unadulterated way might be perceived (or self-perceived) as saying – with a cheesy grin – “I’m an entertainer”. So better to stay away and be sure of being an artist.

Interesting discussion!

Mark's comments explain to a T/tee exactly why my current listening is almost all vintage music from the '50s back to the 1890s - and across a spectrum of pop, blues, gospel, country, R&B, cajun, jazz, western swing, bluegrass and more.

Reflecting Mark's candid comments, I feel that as a listener I had really lost my way. And lost contact with the earthy pulses that originally drew me to music in my early teens.

I might add, though, that a decade plus of listening almost exclusively to contemporary jazz has made me a better listener. I am now listening to old pals with fresh ears.

Magic Sam's Black Magic rocks the house like the best of Blue Note or Prestige. Bob Dunn is an improvising genius. Tommy Duncan is a great jazz singer. And so on.

[ironguts]

I never used the word confront, i used challenge. To me confrontation is quite aggressive, where as challenging means it just takes some work, it's not handed to you on a platter. Herbie and Vinnie, by what you said, took up the challenge to do what they do in a fresh way, and in turn got you thinking about it. That's great, that means something for you.
About the pleasure thing, I'm the same as you, Big Brother = horrible shit, Cecil Taylor = pleasing but challenging.
By some posts it seems that we're not allowed to call ourselves artists else it might get in the way or seem arrogant. Well to quote a great tee-shirt " I'm not arrogant, I'm just that good".
I think it's important to think about ourselves as artists and reflect on what that means to us and the effect it may have on others. I don't want to think of myself as an entertainer or just a player, it means more to me than that, and hopefully more to others.
I certainly hope people don't see me playing the angry young thing. I would hope, as you say, that my music would be more pleasing to you more than Big B, not because I want to please you Mark, I would just hope someone of your prowess would 'get it'.
On the 'obviousness' of music, I don't really believe what you say. Avoiding the obvious may sound obvious, being obvious may sound obvious, really depends on the situation, no cut and dry there. I do however think that this is an area that 'we' as artists are challenged. Learning to surprise even yourself is a big one, but that's the challenge I'm on about I guess. I don't want to be obvious about my art, but then people may have an expectation of me when I perform and then I have to deal with that somehow. Is that when it becomes entertainment, when you fulfill the expectation? What if they expect Art and to be challenged, like you do? Then maybe it is pleasing and entertaining and Art all in one lovely package tied up with string.

[isaacs]

ironguts said:

I never used the word confront, i used challenge

Quite right. I paraphrased. Sorry. I thought you meant challenging in the sense of confronting. Let's not do the semantic thing again, in some ways they can be freely interchanged though I accept they mean different things to you. I think Herbie and Vinnie incorporating pop elements (consummately) could be both challenging and confronting to a certain kind of "jazz-is-art" mindset (not necessarily talking about you here). I get a hint John Shand had that experience to some extent, judging by his review (and to bring this thread full circle!). Read it at www.smh.com.au/news/music/herbie-hancock-state-theatre-april-23/2007/04/25/1177459785834.html

[ironguts]

I'm with you an that "jazz is art" thing. No one can even say what Jazz is so why hold it up. Music is music, some great country, funk etc etc. I choose to use elements of what has been known as Jazz but many would say I'm not Jazz, which I'm more than happy to be.
Yeah, semantics again, the English language is pretty good but it aint perfect, that's for sure. ( especially when I use it )
I'll read that article and get back.

[alimcg]

"It also strikes me that some here can't comprehend an artist and an entertainer co-existing in the one performance"

Art maybe entertaining, but I would say it doesn't strive to be. Entertainers entertain, der, they don't make Art. Entertaining people is not an Art, it's a skill or craft.

Sorry guts, that's what I meant, I should've expanded a bit on that. What I was really getting at is that some people think that being an artist prohibits one from being entertaining, and vice-versa. Again shades of grey here. Some people see a Tarantino film as pure entertainment, some see it as art. All rather personal.

I also like the thought pattern that goes something like this...
"The less people at my gig and the less money I make, the more artistic and creative I am. I am not compromised in any way." All a bit back to front. As the saying goes, there's no honour in your kids going hungry.

[captain]

Careful G - Lot's of people on here have kids!

[ironguts]

mmm yes, no honor in it but some reality.

[captain]

Should Guts do a chrismas album so he can buy his kids a pony?

[alimcg]

captain said:

Careful G - Lot's of people on here have kids!

Whoa-ee-whoa-we-wah!

Maybe I should expand a little more. I merely meant that some people I've encountered use bizarre methods to judge their "level" of art - "the less people at my gig, the more artistic I am." It's completely silly. We aren't in it for the money obviously, but it's not a competition to see who can be the poorest.

This also links in to why some of "us" have jobs outside of music, so that we can do the music that we want in the way we want. And there are those amongst us who happily balance gigs where they are artists with gigs where they are entertainment. Some of us are happier doing other jobs than doing corporate gigs, some of us don't mind corporate work at all. To each his own.

[captain]

Great success!

[ironguts]

alimcg, I don't think there are too many around who actually believe that. Sure, I heard it and even said it as a joke, but I'm more than happy if it's a good crowd. It has little, or hopefully no, effect on how we play, though it can change the sound.
Pretty much all of musicians here do something to subsidize their art, even if it's apply for grants! Sure, each to their own how they get by.
Art is definitely not judged by its popularity, either way.
I remember Mark Simmonds used to say to me that his parents had a go at him about jazz not being popular, he replied " Hitler was popular".
Sure, no honor in hungry kids, no honor in fat ones either.