gunter hampel posted this on FB today

[alocispepraluger102]

"Gunter Hampel

is that because jazz is not on TV anymore ? in those thousands of new stations , there is no jazz stations. if we want jazz to survive we have to have jazzstations on TV ? that is todays education, and manipulation and informant for the billions of people of new generations. göttingen the former jazzcity is still educating 25 ooo of new students ! but no jazzclub is here.

no cd or dvd store to offer jazz.

anyone knows where people download jazzmusic from ?

and how can we be public, when we are not publicly involved ?

i know what jazz has done to me. how louis armstrong gave me the scepter to teach people our great music, how my life made sense by the energy of our "real" and improvised , spirited music

we just let that go , because of what ?

have we created with the computer artificial species ( instead of humans )who have taken over

already. ? i know a university professor here in göttingen, prof hütter who says

if we are not hinking

if we do not use our brains anymore, it is shrinking.

how can we get to people to be involved in jazzmusik , again ????????????????

this is my question of today ?

be good"

-------

"o boy this chapter got lost and i have to rewrite it :

the other day julius , one of my sax students came into town and asked me to play with him and a DJ on campus in a newly formed dicothek, the freshlings - erstlings-as they are called.
we had an audience of 3oo kids who wnated to dance (17-3o years old) we played with sax ,flute and the DJ for 2 hours and got off, improvising. the kids, students, our future elite took off and had a ball, julius and me and the DJ served them-incredible loud a fantastic mix of getting off on each other and delivered. they danced and clapped and "listened" ! they stood here and applauded or were just looking at ur blowing and getting off, like as if to follow the flute or sax's improvisations, their faces lit up and you could feel and enjoy their deeply involvement , after 2 hours we were exhausted, because it was loud (discothek) and sweatty. they placed their jackets and bags with us on the stage, they trusted us with their valuables. after the concert i was sitting exhausted, about 1oo of them came to me, offered me drinks and said, "we have never heard a flute been played like that " or that was fantastic, dancing was so easy with the flute and sax. when we told them, that we are jazz musicians, they said what is that ?"

Edited May 12, 2013 by alocispepraluger102

[king ubu]

was ist das?

that's Buddenbrooks, right?

[mikeweil]

That neurological professor is Gerald Hüther, not Hütter. In my eyes this whole process is still the tail end of the bourgeois revolution in culture, narrowing tastes and levels. The dictatorship of average taste ... the media play a large part, in any part of human culture. People can only appreciate what they see/hear.

[king ubu]

the dumbing down dumbs itself down in the meantime ...

(edited for dumb typos)

Edited May 12, 2013 by king ubu

[alocispepraluger102]

"the media play a large part, in any part of human culture. People can only appreciate what they see/hear."

indeed

[Big Beat Steve]

For how many decades has Gunter Hampel beein involved in a music that is US-American in its origins and therefore essentially uses English as a "lingua franca"when it is being talked about?

Alas the way Gunter Hampel's message is worded it comes across a bit awkwardly in that respect ...

Seriously and honestly, beyond the understandable and regrettable demise of jazz clubs, however, where has Mr Hampel been all those decades?

Where and when has there ever been a "jazz TV station" in his HOME country?

I dimly recall a time when SWF (J.E. Berendt's "home TV station") was BIT more active in getting jazz programs on the screen, but that was how many decades ago again? And beyond that, what was there? (Not counting the TV/radio stations' big bands playing semi- or 3/4-jazz tunes here and there to spice up otherwise MOR orchestra programs)

And as for Pops' "scepter" being handed down to Mr Hampel (directly, even? ) to spread the gospel of jazz ... Does he (or most others) realize the stylistic divide between Pops' jazz and Mr Hampel's jazz the way it invariably will make itself felt to newbie listeners supposed to be introduced to jazz as a music that is relatively new to them? Not an easy thing to manage if you want to win new fans over at first listening.

Jazz has taken on an exceedingly wide spectrum of stylistic meanings that are all supposed to fall under the all-encompassing generic term of "jazz". But are all specific types of jazz just as easily digestible or accessible to a given newbie listener?

It isn't all the same with jazz and objectively speaking the stylistic differences can be far wider than between, say, death metal and rap, so what kind of jazz are we talking about?

On a local level in Mr Hampel's home country, there IS a subculture of clubs and events where live swinging jazz is being played, including to listening audiences but also (but not limited to) to the entire swing and lindy hop dancers' set (just had to skip such an event locally last night here), so there ARE bands and fans out there who find venues where to have a good time to unpretentious (!), swinging jazz music.

You just have to be alert to it and want to search it out open-mindedly.

Talking about Göttingen, just THIS tiny example for a taster (as yielded by some QUICK googling): http://lindyvirus.com/

Maybe too mainstreamish or (to use a favorite term of oldtime D.B. reviewers) "derivative", and certainly not experimental enough to Mr Hampel's (and other's) jazz ambitions but oh well ... his loss, not theirs.

This is just what the problem is all about IMO. Jazz has become so very many-faceted that one common denominator (as if this was ONE style of music) just won't fit the bill anymore. (Actually it hasn't fitted the bill anymore at least since the 70s) Isn't it just so ... you can very well like 2 or 3 or 4 styles of jazz while at the same time disliking (or being bored or annoyed by) 2 or 3 or 4 other styles of jazz and STILL be a jazz fan. Hardly anybody embraces ALL styles of jazz to the SAME degree.

Now if this leaves the avantgardists out in the cold right now, then this is just a coincidence in time because at other times avantgarde, experimental, free, collective whatever were all the rage everywhere and anybody going for more "traditional" swinging styles of jazz found themselves being sneered at everywhere by the self-professed "enlightened" jazz circles ....

There just ARE some jazz fans who would prefer Scott Hamilton over Peter Brötzmann ANYTIME (or maybe Lionel Hampton over Gunter Hampel ). (The opposite stylistic preferences have long been taken for granted, but some developments in jazz and its styles and tastes just run in circles - "back to the roots" - instead of in a linear manner - "far and ever farther out" )

Sorry, but simply had to get this off my chest ...

Edited May 12, 2013 by Big Beat Steve

[AllenLowe]

I blame musicians, first and foremost - because -

1) they produce too much, just keep playing and recording; I mean, how many novels did Thomas Mann produce? Faulkner? Robbe Grillet? Dosteoevski? How many plays did Buchner write? Beckett? the answer is to all of those is "just enough" - and not the same things over and over again.

2) the audience gets tire of a) on the one hand, every jazz player is a composer, composer, and composer again; few can write so much and keep the quality; I watch a lot of new music on youtube, listen to plenty on Spotify; good players, mediocre music - and b) the more traditional stuff just bores people; history becomes a crutch or, really, an anchor

3) there are a whole lot of tired improvisers - beboppers play the same things, the free players are lazy and repetitive in their approach and reportoire.

ALL of the above need to take sabbaticals and just contemplate the music, life, and art. It worked for me (though mine was a bit more coerced).

Edited May 12, 2013 by AllenLowe

[Steve Reynolds]

Nice post, Allen

Many of my favorite improvisers put out way too many recordings

Too many of them are poorly produced with sub-quality sound which is aggravating as a listener. When I stumble on the excellent recordings, it is more of a surprise than expected.

And yet Mat Maneri can't get his incredible quintet recorded and released

Best band I've seen over the last couple of years and no CD

[Steve Reynolds]

And yet Mat Maneri can't get his incredible quintet recorded and released

Best band I've seen over the last couple of years and no CD

[GA Russell]

Steve, ECM is putting out a new Maneri album the end of this month. This is discussed in the ECM press releases thread.

[clifford_thornton]

I blame musicians, first and foremost - because -

1) they produce too much, just keep playing and recording; I mean, how many novels did Thomas Mann produce? Faulkner? Robbe Grillet? Dosteoevski? How many plays did Buchner write? Beckett? the answer is to all of those is "just enough" - and not the same things over and over again.

2) the audience gets tire of a) on the one hand, every jazz player is a composer, composer, and composer again; few can write so much and keep the quality; I watch a lot of new music on youtube, listen to plenty on Spotify; good players, mediocre music - and b) the more traditional stuff just bores people; history becomes a crutch or, really, an anchor

3) there are a whole lot of tired improvisers - beboppers play the same things, the free players are lazy and repetitive in their approach and reportoire.

ALL of the above need to take sabbaticals and just contemplate the music, life, and art. It worked for me (though mine was a bit more coerced).

Pretty much.

[Chuck Nessa]

And yet Mat Maneri can't get his incredible quintet recorded and released

Best band I've seen over the last couple of years and no CD

Then do it yourself. That's what friends are for. :-)

[Steve Reynolds]

I realize there is a Mat Maneri duo CD with Lucien Ban coming out

[Steve Reynolds]

Chuck - if I had a clue and the money and the time, I would love to do it.

Maybe Not Two records will do it. First off unlike some other labels, their recordings actually sound like the bands do live.

The quintet demands that they capture Randy Peterson in full volume. I'm afraid ECM would castrate the sound of the band.

In fact the weakest of the Joe Maneri quartet recordings is "In Full Cry" and it is because it doesn't sound like the band and one wouldn't even know that Randy Peterson was in the band. Of course it is the one Joe Maneri quartet recording on ECM

[Chuck Nessa]

I never had clue, money or time.

[Steve Reynolds]

I'm just happy I'm able to go see many of the musicians I love play live on a pretty regular basis. Think of it, I get to see Barry Altschul this Thursday live in person! First time seeing him in maybe 15 years.

And I'm not taking for granted that I will see the great Mark Helias on bass both this Thursday and next.

As far as more people not supporting the great jazz musicians of today, they are the ones missing out

[Chuck Nessa]

Great. I wish I lived in a place with more interesting music.

[JSngry]

I never had clue, money or time.

Just passion, will, and dedication.

Good thing you had that instead of those...otherwise you'd probably have ended up as a hobbyist and/or a businessperson before all else, and, ok, but.

[David Ayers]

Allen is right on all those things, over-recording, shortage of ideas. All fine though as the audience for CDs is a niche audience of collectors.

Worth amplifying Allen's point that jazz musicians are all supposed to be composers. 'Classical' concert music made huge strides by the division of labor. We don't e.g. demand that Olga Neuwirth be a concert pianist. In fact in the great period of jazz the labor was divided and specialist composers/arrangers employed.

Which brings me to my next theme, which is that in all its classic periods jazz basically was a commercial music and was a cornerstone of the culture industry. As 'bourgeois' as they come, if that's the vocabulary you want to use, or as 'vulgar' if you prefer. A certain musician-driven art-jazz came out of the end of that, again with many figures (Davis, Hancock, Shorter etc) able to develop large-scale audiences. Others created decent and artistically meaningful careers in the niches they chose to occupy, mainly by touring all of the venues worldwide that could support their work, and often doing so on a shoe-string. Only very little of that music is at a high level of artistic importance. On this board we are part of that narrow set of people who value or over-value it. As I am always saying, if we fail to understand why a lot of what we like is basically boring to most people we are missing a point. It is not boring due to their lack of education. The argument for educating the young in jazz already betrays a provincialism. The most advanced musical art is not jazz or improv in any of its forms. So it is not a question of levels, but of genre. As Miles clearly understood and as we should. Not everyone is a genius and not everyone deserves a hearing, though it might be fun to hear them play and pick up some CDs.

Edited May 13, 2013 by David Ayers

[Steve Reynolds]

I like this line from Allen:

"1) there are a whole lot of tired improvisers - beboppers play the same things, the free players are lazy and repetitive in their approach and reportoire."

I may think about this when i go to only 1 of the nights of Vision Festival.

Besides my dark period (if I can be so self-centered) of 2003 or so until maybe 2009 or 2010 when for various personal reasons, I could not or would not and therefore did not attend more than a handful of live music performances, I would think that *I* am really the audience that something like the Vision Fest should be nurturing and gearing their program to.

Yet - besides one or two slighly inspired chaoices, they pick fine musicians who almost a majority are over 70 and although they usually turn in good performances, in most cases it is little more than "Get Ready for More of the Same"

With all due respect, does ANYONE or his brother think that "Hamiett Bluiett and Friends" whoever those friends might be has any chance to be anything other than what we know it will be??

And as far as the free guys playing the same old repetitive approach to their music, there is much truth to that with many of them sticking TIGHTLY to the same small circle of participants. Retrospect shows us that the core groups of musicians for the most part are as insulated from new musical directions as the detested young lions were in the 80's and 90's.

And the results in great part are destined years from now to be just as forgettable 20 to 30 years down the road.

and the improvisors who may be limited in their approach in many cases deliberatley yet focused to mine that territory or those areas with great passion and integrity (I say Parker-Guy-Lytton fits this bill - their most recent music although it is of the same formula crackles with intensity) seem not to have any real voice at this supposed Free Jazz Festival - egads - has Eddie Prevost ever been invited?

Or Alexander von Schlippenbach?

yes - over 70, yes - Europeans - but Brotzmann has been there - seems like the committee is simply bereft of any imagination for anything other than Get Ready for More of the Same

bakc in the day, they NEVER even had the JOE MANERI quartet on the bill - and yet they had his son a few times - must be some screws loose.....and I always thought when Hemingway's Quartet played maybe in 2000 it was some kind of mistake - I still remember how much better they wetre musically than most all of the supposed legends playing the same thing they been playing since 1970.....and GOD forbid they ever bring a bassist from England (Guy or Edwards) that would expose the limitations of the quote, un-quote downtowner.

whatever - I'm in a crotchety space today...

then again, if anyone heard the opening nonsense of the yelping and "poetry" at last years event, then maybe it should be obvious

and at the same time the supposedly worn out quintet that is In Order To Survive was vibrantly alive and was among of the finest hour of music I saw live over the past couple of years...

well going Thursday night to see Barry Altschul and I think he's never been on the list - he's only one of the greatest drummers alive, maybe @ Vision Fest they book another set with Whit Dickey instead.....adn I guess we will never see Randy Peterson allowed on that stage....

[AllenLowe]

this is a very complex argument - and of course I have my own ideas why certain things suffer musically. And it is possible to do good music that is accessible (immodestly I will cite our blues project); but also I think the internet has just left us adrift in a sea of activity. If you have to work for a living, and have limited time, t's very hard to know what to do or where to look. And strangely enough, though the net has opened things up, it has also resulted in a great clannishness, in which people retreat to, and stay inside, their own comfort zone.

[Steve Reynolds]

great points, Allen

[clifford_thornton]

I'll be happy to see Francois Tusques again - it's been years.

[Steve Reynolds]

I've never seen the pianist nor have I ever seen Louis Sclavis or Larry Ochs so there is no way I miss that night.

Plus I try never to miss Hamid Drake. He may be the same guy playing what he plays but for whatever reason to me it always sounds brand new every time.

[jeffcrom]

Yeah, jazz is dead, and has been since ___________________________ (fill in the blank).* It's dead, and there's no money in it, but those who want to play it keep finding a way to play it, those who want to hear it keep finding a way to hear it, and those who love it enough keep finding a way to record and distribute it.

And personally, I usually prefer to hear contemporary musicians play their own compositions. If that's what they're into.

* A. The big bands died out.

B. Bebop.

C. Rock and roll.

D. Free jazz.

E. Fusion.

F. Wynton.

G. The internet.

H. All of the above.