Making a Case for the ‘Cult’ of Jazz

[Chuck Nessa]

So, we are talking about the "fusion" picker with hippie hair and a large bank account? At least he "paid his respects" for a while.

[Hot Ptah]

So, we are talking about the "fusion" picker with hippie hair and a large bank account? At least he "paid his respects" for a while.

In recent live performance, he has played a good deal of "real jazz" content. He is respected in his native Kansas City for establishing a charitable foundation to help young musicians. He is more than a fusion picker with hippie hair, from what I can tell.

This is one of several "highly outspoken" speeches he has given on The State of Jazz over the years. He does not hesitate to state very strong positions, to say the least. One of his famous Great Speeches bashed Wynton Marsalis, another argued for the use of computers in music. He does not sanitize his ideas when he gives these addresses.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Hot Ptah

[Jazzmoose]

So, we are talking about the "fusion" picker with hippie hair and a large bank account? At least he "paid his respects" for a while.

That sounds a lot like Jim's "I'm playing the real shit and everybody else is jivin' " bit to me...

[AllenLowe]

Metheny can play - it's that Lyle Mays whose playing I find execrable -

[Hot Ptah]

Metheny can play - it's that Lyle Mays whose playing I find execrable -

In my opinion, Metheny has wasted his time with the entire Pat Metheny Group for several years now. He is so much more interesting to me as a player in settings other than the Pat Metheny Group. His current trio is one of the most promising contexts for his playing, I think.

[7/4]

Metheny can play - it's that Lyle Mays whose playing I find execrable -

In my opinion, Metheny has wasted his time with the entire Pat Metheny Group for several years now. He is so much more interesting to me as a player in settings other than the Pat Metheny Group. His current trio is one of the most promising contexts for his playing, I think.

That pretty much says it.

[7/4]

A recent conversation with a local...

me: there's not much rock, it's not like Rush or Yes. The group is named after Henry Cowell.

This is a bullshit separation; even speaking extemporaneously, wtf? Henry Cowell has plenty in common with each, which doesn't mean anyone has to like all three (although many contemporary heads dug Yes and HC and, in fact, some HC members are known Yes fans). Chris Cutler, among other things, was later Pere Ubu's ROCK drummer, although of course he does many other things. If if makes you feel good to not be a "prog" guy, have at it, but it's really bullshit. All three groups have more in common than they do apart, at least until the fluke of Rush's arena superstardom, and '80s Yes Top 40 success. I'm shocked an erstwhile "musician" would be dead to this.

Henry Cowell was an interesting composer, an important teacher AND nascent gay rights figure; in some ways (but not all, when they got to "Western Civilization") HC copping his name was a jive English "art fag" move that never even approached the cultural implications it could have, although later all members pushed the politics further.

Henry Cow sounds nothing like Yes or Rush, no matter how you twist it. Name the Henry Cow tune that sounds like Roundabout or Close to the Edge. Fred Frith that sounds like Steve Howe or and of the guitar players Howe resembles? Same goes for the drumming or singing. List the examples Clem...

So who's the simpleminded person in the coversation above, and who's merely ignorant? (Not a condition I'd encourage but it happens, especially to middle aged men who think they need to "catch up" to Radiohead, of all rock acts they missed in the last 40 years, that's the way uh-huh, uh-huh they like it.)

There's nothing wrong with a passing familiarity with pop culture. Those with contempt sound like assholes.

If if makes you feel good to not be a "prog" guy, have at it, but it's really bullshit.

I'd say I have as many Henry Cow albums as Yes albums and listen to them all about as much. Fish Rising or the Fish?

I actually am a progrock guy, polish your glasses bonehead.

[Jazzmoose]

So who's the simpleminded person in the coversation above, and who's merely ignorant? (Not a condition I'd encourage but it happens, especially to middle aged men who think they need to "catch up" to Radiohead, of all rock acts they missed in the last 40 years, that's the way uh-huh, uh-huh they like it.)

There's nothing wrong with a passing familiarity with pop culture. Those with contempt sound like assholes.

Maybe nothing wrong with it, but certainly nothing to brag about either...

[7/4]

Who's bragging?

Nothing wrong with being musically curious.

.

[AllenLowe]

let us bear in mind that pop culture is many different things, from comic books to television to films and music - so most of us here have much more than just a passing interest -

[Van Basten II]

Who's bragging?

Nothing wrong with being musically curious.

.

[7/4]

Who's bragging?

Nothing wrong with being musically curious.

.

Exactly.

Clem seems to think it's a crime.

[Alexander]

"The culture is openly hostile to jazz."

I wonder if he gave any examples to back up this statement?

Looks like he could have worded it better... For one, I'm genuinely puzzled by his use of "the culture." What culture (or sub-culture) is he referring to? Seriously.

Edited to add: this sounds a lot like some of the recurring posts on another board...

More like "the culture is completely indifferent to jazz." I honestly don't think most people know it's there.

In order to be hostile towards something, you have to actually be aware of it...

[Alexander]

let us bear in mind that pop culture is many different things, from comic books to television to films and music - so most of us here have much more than just a passing interest -

Word!

[Hot Ptah]

Who's bragging?

Nothing wrong with being musically curious.

.

Exactly.

Clem seems to think it's a crime.

Oh no, it was not Clem who posted that, it was Chauncey Morehouse. Didn't you notice that it was a different person?

[Shawn]

Oh no, it was not Clem who posted that, it was Chauncey Morehouse. Didn't you notice that it was a different person?

[Jazzmoose]

Clem seems to think it's a crime.

Not a crime, but let's be honest. Keeping up with the latest in pop music is hardly something to be proud of. I'd put it in the category of keeping up with the latest sports news or your favorite soap opera. What I mean is, if you enjoy it, great; everyone has their hobbies and trivial interests. But don't expect everyone to agree that the latest and greatest pop star is of worldshaking importance...

Damn it, Clem; get back here...I'm not obnoxious enough to make these points!

[7/4]

7/4, face it, you are busted; you know less than "ass" about Henry Cow, their sources or their following careers, if you don't recognize Yes as their forebears or Rush as their near-contemporaries. Or did you also not listen to Fred Frith with Naked City? So they didn't "sound" alike; all of those bands reformulated certain elements within their respective purviews in ways that had not been done before. They are all prog rock-- and other things but well within any commonly known "prog" bounds only post-padding loads would bother to argue. Did Thelonious Monk sound like Al Haig sound like Dodo Marmorosa? Spare us the answer unless you can find it in the New York Times first, we'd all have trouble thunkin' otherwise.

Obviously they're all progrock bands.

That you are SO simple-minded that you understand overlapping cultural trends yet posit youself as something other than the merely ignorant person who had not heard of shit like Henry Cow (who, as such, were about 1/100th as interesting as Henry Cowell) is really like, wow, if not surprising.

That's not what the story was about...it was about how a local - who is my low cost guitar tech - thinks that everything I listen to must be Jazz, because he doesn't know any better. He hears music through the ears of guitar magazines.

As for Radiohead, Clem....you're way more fixated on them than I'll ever be. I don't even have the Radiohead collection that someone loaned me anymore. It's history man.

[7/4]

Clem seems to think it's a crime.

Not a crime, but let's be honest. Keeping up with the latest in pop music is hardly something to be proud of. I'd put it in the category of keeping up with the latest sports news or your favorite soap opera. What I mean is, if you enjoy it, great; everyone has their hobbies and trivial interests. But don't expect everyone to agree that the latest and greatest pop star is of worldshaking importance...

Damn it, Clem; get back here...I'm not obnoxious enough to make these points!

What makes you think that I give a fuck about what's going on in the popular music world? Just because Clem thinks I do, doesn't mean that I care...

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

"The culture is openly hostile to jazz."

I wonder if he gave any examples to back up this statement?

Looks like he could have worded it better... For one, I'm genuinely puzzled by his use of "the culture." What culture (or sub-culture) is he referring to? Seriously.

Edited to add: this sounds a lot like some of the recurring posts on another board...

More like "the culture is completely indifferent to jazz." I honestly don't think most people know it's there.

In order to be hostile towards something, you have to actually be aware of it...

I don't think I'm a great expert on this issue, but surely the existence of all those Walt Disney films etc with jazz soundtracks means that most people DO know it's there. You also wouldn't get all those TV ads with jazz backgrounds. Nor the DIY and cooking programmes. I was stopped dead in my tracks while passing through the lounge some time back by hearing Grant Green's "Selma march" on a DIY programme. And a few minutes after that, there was "Back at the Chicken Shack".

What most people DON'T know is there, and probably wouldn't care about if they did, is hardcore modern jazz. I've never heard Metheny; is that what he plays?

MG

[AllenLowe]

well, it is true that jazz is sort of a cultural backdrop - different, however, from a true focus -

[Hot Ptah]

well, it is true that jazz is sort of a cultural backdrop - different, however, from a true focus -

True. I hear uncompromising jazz all the time over the sound system at Starbucks and at Barnes & Noble--but how many people are actually taking note of it and listening with any awareness. Probably very few.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

well, it is true that jazz is sort of a cultural backdrop - different, however, from a true focus -

True. I hear uncompromising jazz all the time over the sound system at Starbucks and at Barnes & Noble--but how many people are actually taking note of it and listening with any awareness. Probably very few.

I don't think that matters. I think it's good that jazz can form part of the background to people's lives. It means that people can pick up on it, if they want to. And not, if they don't want to. Surely that's all anyone could ask. I can't really see why anyone would want anything more; there's no special virtue about jazz, apart from the fact that we like it. Well, bollox to us!

I think that the fact that places like Starbucks can put "uncompromising jazz" out in their coffee shops is a direct counter to Pat Metheny's initial comment that the culture was "openly hostile". Were that so, people would walk out of Starbucks when they heard it. That doesn't happen, because if it did, Starbucks would play something else.

MG

[JSngry]

Just got back from a 2-night, 3-day 25th anniversary lockup/in w/LTB at an Omni hotel, and on the rare occasions we came up/out for air and food, the house (i.e. - lobby, restaurant, & bar) music was 3/4 piped in jazz from the 50s/early 60s & 1/4 "Classic Soul". A.O., I heard Turrentine/Scott regularly & the Miles/Trane Prestige "Four" several times a day each day. What struck me about the former was that when that music was first made, the only place to hear it off the turntable and radio was in bars/clubs that were the opposite of this hotel in every way. About the latter, I couldn't help but think that that music was made by a band that was 4/5 hardcore junkies who even now would probably scare the living shit out of everybody staying there and 99% of the people working there.

Also in/at the hotel the same time as us - a group of about 20 KAL hostesses & the entirety of a convention of something called "All Star Kids", which is apparently some level of the pageantry world about which the less I know, the happier I think I'll be. Everybody else was either businesspeople or couples who seemed to be like us, folks who wanted to shut out the reality of Reality for a little bit and get back in touch with the deepest reality of their lives.

I think it was very unlikely that the number of people in that crowd who knew that particular 2/3 of the music being played (or was even listening to it) was higher than, counting myself) 2 or 3. That's just how it goes. So, yeah, this music that once was one thing is now being used for something else entirely, yet in both cases it's unmistakably "jazz". Is this something I should be happy about? If it is, then fuck me again, because I think it's bullshit. Is this something I should be offended by? Is so, then fuck me again, because hey, we're talking music that's at or approaching 50 years old now, made when most of the people hearing it (and even some of their parents) weren't even born, and music that was made by people who are now eitehr dead or else coming down the homestretch in no uncertain terms. The people hearing it in that hotel didn't know, and didn't care. The music was totally neutral. That it was music that had not that long ago been anything but neutral just tells me that time has marched on as time will do, and that any power that this type jazz has left is that which we grant it, not that which forces itself on us (I seriously doubt I'd hear Pangea or Interstellar Space in these surroundings, much less a Hot five side).

Now me myself, I'm perfectly willing, under the right circumstances, to grant this type music plenty of power, for any number of reasons. But if I think that it still "matters" for anything other than personal pleasure or a window into a specific time, place, and culture, then I am being seriously delusional, because it doesn't. It just doesn't. I mean, if oatmeal-legged stage-grandmothers and totally emasculated teenage boys can sit still while hearing Trane & Philly Joe slash their way through two choruses and not so much as even squirm in their seat just a little bit, then any illusions that this music is still truly (i.e. - intirnsically) "hip" or "cool" are just plain, freakin' nuts.

In fact, I'd not be too surprised if at some point in the not too-distant future, some All Star Kid uses "jazz playing" as their talent, and that it will be applauded with great gusto..

Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

[seeline]

well, it is true that jazz is sort of a cultural backdrop - different, however, from a true focus -

True. I hear uncompromising jazz all the time over the sound system at Starbucks and at Barnes & Noble--but how many people are actually taking note of it and listening with any awareness. Probably very few.

I don't think that matters. I think it's good that jazz can form part of the background to people's lives. It means that people can pick up on it, if they want to. And not, if they don't want to. Surely that's all anyone could ask. I can't really see why anyone would want anything more; there's no special virtue about jazz, apart from the fact that we like it. Well, bollox to us!

I think that the fact that places like Starbucks can put "uncompromising jazz" out in their coffee shops is a direct counter to Pat Metheny's initial comment that the culture was "openly hostile". Were that so, people would walk out of Starbucks when they heard it. That doesn't happen, because if it did, Starbucks would play something else.

MG

Good points, MG! As Teasing the Korean said earlier, Metheney's remarks might apply more to his own music than to jazz in general.