Jump to content

Here we go again: Glasper on the problem with "Jazz"


Recommended Posts

From the Wall Street Journal, of course: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303471004579163973063650890

I probably will regret having posted this, but well, I regret having read it. For my part, I think his argument suffers from the toxic combination of stringent rhetoric and zero sum logic. I also find the territory of his whole thought process to be muddled: mainstream, underground, young audience, older audience, so on and so on: none of it is so simple as he seems to think it is.

If Wynton is the voice of reason in your debate, there's trouble: "I don't think the art form [jazz] is going to receive anything by being R&B. That's already been done"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glasper interviews where he goes on about stuff like this, it always comes off to me like he's trying to paint himself as some sort of lone rebel against this mythical jazz establishment, when in reality no one really gives a shit and there are numerous artists quietly going about their business incorparting all sorts of non-traditional elements in to their music. For the record i like Glasper's album In My Element and actually quite enjoyed Black Radio for what it was (which is surprising considering i generally loathed neo-soul in it's hey day).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glasper keeps railing on about the "jazz establishment," but is there really one anymore? There were two examples mentioned in the article: Wynton Marsalis seems to not like him, and the Village Vanguard, which booked him (which connotes some degree of acceptance). But he's probably being honest when he says Roy Ayers means more to him than does Mingus. If it's simply true, there's nothing wrong with it. You can't be forced to love anything, and his love of Ayers's music probably motivated him to become a musician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted a few thoughts in Facebook discussion -- reposting slightly edited version here:

I've been thinking about Glasper lately too given all the attention. I've heard the records and I've heard him live, where there is more improvisation. I like the music, and, generally speaking, think that the idea of jazz wrapping itself around today's popular music is a fine thing to do if that’s what you want to do. I'm for better quality popular music period, and Glasper’s sophisticated brand of jazzy R&B qualifies – I feel the same way about Esperanza Spalding. I’m skeptical that this music becomes a “gateway drug” to “real jazz,” but I also think that doesn't matter much in the end. If it wins a few converts along the way, fine, and if not, at least folks are hearing better music than they do in the rest of the commercial world.

But I’m troubled by the way he positions himself within interviews as a rebel, his historical myopia and the way certain writers and media buy into the notion of the “savior.” He insists that his biggest obstacle has been the jazz establishment, but what he really means is that Wynton Marsalis doesn’t like him; this isn't the same thing, and good God, get over it already. If you’re recording for Blue Note, giving interviews to the Wall Street Journal, having the major jazz press fawn all over you and polishing a Grammy Award on your mantle, you’ve won the marketplace sweepstakes and either the jazz establishment (whatever that is these days) wasn’t much of an obstacle or you need to rethink your definition. Playing the aggrieved victim viz. the establishment suggests a kind of insecurity about straying from his jazz background.

Second, what’s new about the music is basically the way he integrates his Herbie Hancock-influenced pianism within the spectrum of today’s hip-hop influenced R&B. But conceptually this is simply fusion redux. There's nothing wrong with that. It’s a valid direction, and he deserves points for doing it as well as he does. But it’s basically Head Hunters updated in today’s vernacular. Maybe that should count as innovation in the post-modern age, but whether you think the music is fresh or boring, let’s not pretend it’s anything more than it is. I hope Glasper helps build a broader audience for jazz – I won’t hold my breath – but to suggest that he’s found THE answer, as if there is AN answer is silly. In the meantime, I’m glad he’s doing what he’s doing. For what it’s worth, when I saw him live last year in Detroit, I was intrigued by the demographic of an audience – probably 90% African-American, almost entirely under 35 or so and split evenly between men and women – that was digging music that was almost entirely instrumental. The grooves were strong, but I was disappointed that Glasper didn’t stretch out more. It wasn’t that solos were always short but that the trajectory of the music didn’t really move forward as much as jog in place. I felt like even in the context of the idiom in which he’s working he could have pushed harder and the audience would have gone along for the ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing the aggrieved victim viz. the establishment suggests a kind of insecurity about straying from his jazz background.

Or else it suggests a kind of savvy about how the media works, and that when you say X, you get "good coverage".

These "controversies" about who likes what and why is a consensual game played by press and, more and more frequently, musicians alike, with the only goal being to gain profile which will then, hopefully, result in more product being moved, be it rock, paper, or schizzers.

Matthew Shipp has his press rap down to a science, and it appears that Glasper's is developing likewise, get a theme or two, variate it as needed, and always throw in a little stray fresh info for freshness.

Anybody think that Marc Meyers is gonna put a Robert Glasper piece in the WSJ where the focus is on what kind of clothes he prefers, what movies he's been checking out, anything but the "upstart rebel hip-(h)(b)opster bucking the jazz establishment" angle? What would that look like, the world in which that even becomes an option? Some day, but not to day.

Cogs, that's all this is, cogs. The cogs of business. WSJ needs a cog (although why is still beyond me), Mark Myers needs a cog, Robert Glasper needs a cog, so together they all got their cogs. Win-win, especially if some suckers read it and think it matters, that cogs do more than coggify.

FWI I still dig "Searchin" a BIG bunch of lots, although Boyz II Men was after my prime®(est) time. No biggie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing the aggrieved victim viz. the establishment suggests a kind of insecurity about straying from his jazz background.

Or else it suggests a kind of savvy about how the media works, and that when you say X, you get "good coverage".

These "controversies" about who likes what and why is a consensual game played by press and, more and more frequently, musicians alike, with the only goal being to gain profile which will then, hopefully, result in more product being moved, be it rock, paper, or schizzers.

Matthew Shipp has his press rap down to a science, and it appears that Glasper's is developing likewise, get a theme or two, variate it as needed, and always throw in a little stray fresh info for freshness.

Anybody think that Marc Meyers is gonna put a Robert Glasper piece in the WSJ where the focus is on what kind of clothes he prefers, what movies he's been checking out, anything but the "upstart rebel hip-(h)(b)opster bucking the jazz establishment" angle? What would that look like, the world in which that even becomes an option? Some day, but not to day.

Cogs, that's all this is, cogs. The cogs of business. WSJ needs a cog (although why is still beyond me), Mark Myers needs a cog, Robert Glasper needs a cog, so together they all got their cogs. Win-win, especially if some suckers read it and think it matters, that cogs do more than coggify.

FWI I still dig "Searchin" a BIG bunch of lots, although Boyz II Men was after my prime®(est) time. No biggie.

I agree with much of what Jim says here and will note that as a self-aware journalist I dance with my own cogness, trying to always find a way to get at some Truth depsite the system & machinery, opt out when the stench of b.s. gets too strong and never ever play the fool.

Edited by Mark Stryker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing the aggrieved victim viz. the establishment suggests a kind of insecurity about straying from his jazz background.

Or else it suggests a kind of savvy about how the media works, and that when you say X, you get "good coverage".

These "controversies" about who likes what and why is a consensual game played by press and, more and more frequently, musicians alike, with the only goal being to gain profile which will then, hopefully, result in more product being moved, be it rock, paper, or schizzers.

Matthew Shipp has his press rap down to a science, and it appears that Glasper's is developing likewise, get a theme or two, variate it as needed, and always throw in a little stray fresh info for freshness.

Anybody think that Marc Meyers is gonna put a Robert Glasper piece in the WSJ where the focus is on what kind of clothes he prefers, what movies he's been checking out, anything but the "upstart rebel hip-(h)(b)opster bucking the jazz establishment" angle? What would that look like, the world in which that even becomes an option? Some day, but not to day.

Cogs, that's all this is, cogs. The cogs of business. WSJ needs a cog (although why is still beyond me), Mark Myers needs a cog, Robert Glasper needs a cog, so together they all got their cogs. Win-win, especially if some suckers read it and think it matters, that cogs do more than coggify.

FWI I still dig "Searchin" a BIG bunch of lots, although Boyz II Men was after my prime®(est) time. No biggie.

Yes, to almost all of the above in terms of your insight as to how the media-meeting-artist, cogs-fitting-into-cogs machine actually works. OTOH, as a former journalist in those realms (and perhaps Mark S. can back me up here), I can't tell you how potentially corrupting such transactions are to the self-respect (even to the actual human identities) of all parties involved. I'm reminded of Viennese journalist Karl Kraus's remark (which in the German original, so I've been told, is based on a play on words that is untranslatable into English): "The problem with the Viennese people is that they don't understand German, but I can't tell them that in journalese."

P.S. I see from the post above that Mark already has weighed in. I agree about trying to "dance with my own cogness," but eventually that began to seem close to a losing proposition, especially because the journalistic world I entered in the mid 1970s changed quite radically over the next 25 years -- or so I felt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I hope Glasper helps build a broader audience for jazz – I won’t hold my breath – but to suggest that he’s found THE answer, as if there is AN answer is silly. In the meantime, I’m glad he’s doing what he’s doing. "

Good comments all around. The "conflict" gets press, and everybody seemingly benefits, except people's understanding of the music itself. I know I'm old school, but I still feel there's meaning to the word "jazz", although I like a very open definition of that term. I'd rather someone like Glasper just say, "Hey, I'm a new kind of R & B" or something to that effect, rather than claim he's jazz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, ok, I'm sure there's some kind of problem with this, there's problems everywhere with everything, ain't no livin' in a perfect world, right? but whatever problems there are with this particular piece of music exist, as far as I can tell, on some kind of vibrational/extistinkial plane with which I am not cognizentially intersectating. If one is, then one is, but that then becomes something for one to process without getting or trying to get me involved in thinking that whatever problems/questions/answers/etc exist as a result of anything other than one's own personal - not universal - situation. I ain't in all that, thank you, and I ain't the only one.

tumblr_lpkqmfgNrA1r0plbdo1_500.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could get back the 90 seconds I wasted on that article. Journalism is more dead than jazz as displayed by Mr. Myers. My favorite line is Glasper thinks the jazz community has not given him his just due. Ha! That's ok. He can keep it real by playing the classics like New Edition, Johnny Gill and Boys II Men. I'll stick to those chumps named Mingus and Duke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there is the sister article on his blog.....in this one, to me the writer comes off as the one making the bold proclamations about Glasper being the future of the music.

I also joined in a Facebook discussion on this and this is what wrote about the Wall Street Journal piece......

How do you reconcile one statement with the other?

"To make a point, the jazz pianist clicked on a live recording of his band—the Robert Glasper Experiment—performing Roy Ayers's "Searching." Starting in the 1970s, Mr. Ayers—a jazz vibraphonist—embraced soul and had a series of hit albums, including "Everybody Loves the Sunshine."
"That's my dude, right there—Roy Ayers," said Mr. Glasper, 35. "Without Roy Ayers, I couldn't do what I'm doing now. Roy didn't feel he owed the jazz community anything, and neither do I."
and then a couple of paragraphs down.......
"Jazz politics notwithstanding, Mr. Glasper's efforts come at an opportune time. Jazz has been struggling financially for decades, largely because it has remained unchanged. The last major new jazz style—jazz-rock fusion—emerged in the late '60s, and radio's decline has kept many younger listeners from hearing the music's history".
So essentially Glasper is saying that he is hugely influenced by Roy Ayers and is essentially doing what Roy did in the '70s (and also in a Down Beat article last year he said the first Black Radio CD was essentially a '70s Donny Hathaway record). Then a couple of paragraphs down, Myers says that nothing has happened in Jazz since the late '60s and here comes Robert Glasper to save the day....by doing what Roy Ayers did in the '70s.
Am I missing something here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The obvious comparison to me would be M-Base. I fail to see how he's not doing more or less the same thing 25 years later, or how this won't look like that in 25 more years.

Seriously?

That's funny.

Care to elaborate? I'm not judging, I'm just saying that M-Base sounds very 1990. Won't Glasper's music just sound very 2013 some time from now? Dating is by and large unavoidable, but it's a real trap when it comes to self-styled "groundbreaking" experiments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The obvious comparison to me would be M-Base. I fail to see how he's not doing more or less the same thing 25 years later, or how this won't look like that in 25 more years.

Seriously?

That's funny.

Care to elaborate? I'm not judging, I'm just saying that M-Base sounds very 1990. Won't Glasper's music just sound very 2013 some time from now? Dating is by and large unavoidable, but it's a real trap when it comes to self-styled "groundbreaking" experiments.

I think he means it's basically what happened in the 90's with stuff like Jazz rap, Nu Jazz, M-Base. The only 2013 thing to these things is he's doing it using people from now to do it. As in, he's really not doing anything new @ all....just his fans today....really don't know about the past stuff.

P.S. I will give him this....unlike the past he's able to get well known names to participate....and when you get it down to it's more his guests than him that are leading to the sales and with sales comes attention. He's got guests that have sold more and/or are more well known than the vast majority of jazz musicians in history just on this latest turd. Without the guests and covering Nirvana....it's basically WTF? is Robert Glasper?

Of course, Snoop Dogg has really lowered his standards of who he will work with as long as he gets the Benjamins. Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus, anyone.

Edited by Blue Train
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The obvious comparison to me would be M-Base. I fail to see how he's not doing more or less the same thing 25 years later, or how this won't look like that in 25 more years.

Seriously?

That's funny.

Care to elaborate? I'm not judging, I'm just saying that M-Base sounds very 1990. Won't Glasper's music just sound very 2013 some time from now? Dating is by and large unavoidable, but it's a real trap when it comes to self-styled "groundbreaking" experiments.

M-Base pushed ahead with metric subdivisions/time signatures/polytonality in a way that Glasper's not even thinking about (not that he should be). M-Base was aggressively confrontational, militant, even, in its musical as well as social positioning. Glasper is so only in his interviews.

Steve Coleman's still making vital music today (and ironically/sadly, his music began to really feel "natural" after the M-Base hype had subsided, all the people who had reservations about it being too "mathematical" or whatnot had a point, but if they used that as an excuse to bail, they bailed too soon,imo. The compression of modern time does no favors to things that need old-school uncompressed time to season, and Steve copleman's music was nothing if not that), and to my ears it only sounds "dated" in the way that any music sounds "dated" when it continues on from whence it began. That Steve Coleman might be "all that's left" of "M-Base" (although, hello, Vijay Iyler) speaks more to the ill-advisement of the marketing label than that of the music itself, but hello Eternal Truth, eh?

Will Robert Glasper be making vital music 25 years from now? I mean, really, who knows, and isn't that kind of a stupid question anyway? He's making pleasant and engaging music (at least to me) today, and will I even be here in 25 years? So why should I care, and why would I feel the need to prognosticate? That's his business, not mine. He'll make his music, and I'll either like it or not. Folks worry too much about people they think should be making music they like not doing so.

I just hope that at some point he does something that gets a leech-like grip on the Whole Self like "Searchin'". Then he could make records with kittens and walruses (separately and together, it matters not) and nobody would care, because there would always be That One Moment. But he ain't done that yet. So, here's to hoping!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...