fasstrack

Good points. That's why I also mentioned leadership. Usually a group, if it's any good, has a common purpose that's organized around the ideas of one, maybe two leaders. Usually cooperations don't work as well. But a wise leader asks the other members for input. As long as no one's ego gets out of line this usually works. I say 'wise' b/c no one wants his ideas stifled and everyone in a good group is there to help the music and, I believe, most people want to support the leader if they respect the leader. But they will also get antsy if they're not allowed to contribute. In a jazz group the time for unity and listening never ends, if it's a real jazz group which stresses improvising, and responding. The rhythm section players can give ideas, too. You learn a lot about people's personalities being in a group----who's stiff and unyielding, who's cool and easy to work with, etc. I've been in the bandleader role a lot myself and my favorite part is turning some creative musicians loose with new material and watching what they do with it. They'll think of things I never would for my own tunes. I also have learned a lot from both good and poor bandleaders I've either worked for or observed.

That's pretty funny. One time I saw Danilio Perez play in a park in the Bronx. he was playing his originals with a good band---and reaching no one, they were bored and fidgety. He basically said 'f$%k it', called up a congero to the stge, and played Oyo Como Va. He got the crowd back. I guess he realized there's a time and place for everything. Had a somewhat similar experience with a high-profile musician's concert a few years back (somebody I like quite a lot)...he played most of the concert with this stoic, quasi-bad-ass/would-be-Miles attitude, wearing shades, not addressing the audience, etc. Near the end he could definitely tell he'd lost a great deal of the crowd, and he opened up a bit (as did the music, which had been heavy on the cerebral side of things, and not in a particularly engaging way). All this talk has really made me think about the idea of self-absorbed originality---which may be good, but only to the originator, vs. uses of music or innovation in the greater social picture (I statred another thread on it also just before). I read the article on Herbie Hancock that Lazaro put up. He's a really good case study for this topic, I think, b/c he has the capability to play long and really keep up his creative energy and his concepts----rhythmic, harmonic, especially, can get really involved to the point where he could lose people, yet he's among the most popular of jazz players, and has been so way before he went 'fusion'. I think maybe (and I can never know, not being inside anyone else's head) he thought about these things discussed and tried to address it. Or maybe he evolved that way. Or maybe he likes money. Or all of the above. But I think his thoughts on the subject are worth reading or hearing as the words of a creative artist that has thought about this stuff. I remember a WKCR FM retrospective on his electric stuff and the interviewed him. These very subjects came up and he replied to a question that he started wondering after a while, and some definite progress creatively, if his music was 'performing any service' other than for himself. He decided that it wasn't up til then.

What about an original group effort?

That's pretty funny. One time I saw Danilio Perez play in a park in the Bronx. he was playing his originals with a good band---and reaching no one, they were bored and fidgety. He basically said 'f$%k it', called up a congero to the stge, and played Oyo Como Va. He got the crowd back. I guess he realized there's a time and place for everything.

Plenty of people fit the criteria of the negative example (I'm not gonna name names, I don't think that shows class, and it's a matter of opinion) but few really pass the positive test to me. It's like someone said about excellence: it's as difficult as it is rare. But to clarify: I'm definitely not trying to start a referendum on player A vs. player B----that just starts fights. I'm more interested in what people think about the idea of the personal vs. the 'useful' and how it impacts on music and society-----what moves things forward and what could be interesting but ultimately is an ego trip. That's all.

Yeah! Finally someone cuts through the BS. Thanks. Lot of complaining babies out there. More than there are good players, bet on that......

This was inspired by the thread about the jazz audience and my own internal struggles. People always talk about originality in music and generally-----but I wonder if they confuse it with other qualities that sometimes overlap with it but are not the same: innovation, personality ('personalness?), leadership, individuality, other things including strangeness. I guess I should give my opinions to come clean and get it out of the way----since everyone else will hopefully give theirs: of course originality is good, but with certian qualifiers, i.e.: if it's based on what came before (since I know of nothing that comes out of nothing) and has some meaning to someone other than oneself. Here's where the confusion with 'personal' might come in. If someone can only play their own music, for example, I guess that's original, but that doesn't make them good musicians. Personal is different than innovative, which to me implies an improvement over something which usually is picked up on by other forward-thinking individuals----b/c it works and is better. To paraphrase John Birks Gillespie about the swing era guys finally having to change an accept bebop 'what were they gonna do, hide from the sun'? There's also a kind of self-absorbed, sticking one's ass out at the world brand of originality that may be original but has more to do with personal rebelliousness than beauty or doing any good in the world. I wonder how valuable this is other than for the person him or herself. I guess influence can be a hallmark of innovation, if not originality, but are all influences good? These are all personal choices and I guess the arguing will begin when I hit send. I think we can agree that history usually prove things' relative value. Your thoughts?

I like Nicholas Slominsky's take on 'non-acceptance of the unfamiliar' in Lexicon of Musical Invective. He pretty much nails it, and people making real breakthoughs in all the arts pretty much have always caught hell. Maybe that has something to do with my trying to fuse a little entertainment into the purely musical aspect. As far as Wynton goes, don't count him out. There's a lot more to him than meets the eye, and I think he's grown a lot. True, he mouthed off a lot stupidly early on, but that was then. I personally appreciate that there's an oasis on an expensive piece of real estate in Manhattan where I can walk in off the street and sit down and see pictures and bios of Charie Christian, etc. in a jazz hall of fame. It was an amazing coup to pull that off. He also has to please the monied interests that keep that place going, and that can't be easy. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. I hope they get edgier and more innovative with their programs, too. With a track record of attendance maybe they can----or maybe they will be trapped chasing the money. Only time will tell. Meanwhile, I have no doubt Wynton digs and is all for musicians and their progress from his actions, my small contact with him, and the fact that he gave Tommy Turrentine a trumpet when he heard he didn't have one. Apropos of nothing, except that it pissed me off, Wynton can speak for himself and doesn't need my help---- he does it very well, but I thought the late Joe Zawinul showed no class whatsoever dissing him in the NYT in an interview when JALC presented him and his music. He should've either said 'thank you' or squelched his big ego and said nothing. I'm personally struggling all the time with keeping an ear to bringing the audience back and keep them while growing and taking chances musically. There's a way, there must be.

This may be true for some audience members in Europe, but it's simply not true for all of them. You're making far too large a generalization. I've seen audience members in Europe dancing in the aisles during jazz performances, by larger well known performers like Herbie Hancock, and lesser, local groups in jazz kellers. You're right. I only saw the tip of the iceberg. I'll probably live there again and longer. But I did see what I saw, and it's cool to react like that. It's a different culture, at least in Holland. I also lived with a guy in Den Haag that was in a Flamenco instrumental/dance troup, and they blew me away. I can imagine people dancing on the tables. I have a lot to learn, though. Thanks for busting me on my hasty conclusions.

The Mahavishnu Orchestra (and countless other interesting and very popular outfits down through time -- for the young Sonny Rollins it was Louis Jordan) have no doubt served as "gateways," but what they did was not conceived or executed by them in "gateway" terms and/or in order to perform some "gateway" function. Think that way and you've got Wynton trying to be Leonard Bernstein at one end of the spectrum and Lord knows what at the other. To put it another way, if the people making the music aren't doing what they really want to do, why should they expect that anyone else would really want to experience it? IIRC, the Mahavishnu Orchestra played balls out con amore -- as did (for that matter) Roscoe Mitchell. I personally think the more genuine you are in doing what you do (in terms of believing in it yourself and what you like musically), the more of a chord you will strike with people. But it has to have real feeling, not BS '2nd-guessing' feeling re what people 'want to hear'. You sort of have to trust that people feel similar things, and the artist is a 'funnel' and can mix it up and articulate it in ways others can't, maybe by hanging in that 'dream state' more. You don't have to sacrifice intellectual content or try to 'adapt'. People will smell that every time. You sort have have to trust that certain things are universal and that if it flows your feeling will be felt by others, whatever the content. Mostly only other musicians care about the musical content, but I've also been amazed how much people can hear, and have learned over the years to trust that. And say hello once in a while.

I couldn't find it, but found Greaze Monkey. Good groove, and you held it. Did you tweak your rig to get that sound? I saw a synth or something on top. Good job. You guys sound like a group. Probably b/c you are.

I just wanted to add one quick thing: I lived in Holland twice, and in Europe they're much more cerebral about their jazz. They expect you to be 'deep', and have a 'tude. If you try to entertain there you might get hurt. They also don't react physically or move to music. Weird after I played for black folks in the States so many years. One guy I knew, a pianist named Peter Beets who plays swinging 'American' piano, got a rise out of a crowd. The rest of the time they want to sit in their seats and sort of space, but are enjoying it in their own way.

I really disagree with this. And history also disproves it, since until the 40s jazz musicians were considered entertainers, or worse, black entertainers, by white society----and that mindset is very difficult to break when one is trying to survive. It's a tribute to the geniuses that did do their thing and moved music forward that they could do it in the context of work. It's an uphill battle, and even dangerous career-wise, or, back then, even survival-wise. I have a recording of a concert I played where I asked Eddie Locke to talk about the meaning of jazz to the young people there who were ignorant of it. He made a huge point of the social aspects of the music and its' function as dance music, and said verbatim 'once in the night there would be a little time called 'hot time', where they would play solos like we're doing tonight'. And he played with some of the great soloists. They had discipline and knew what a gig required. I'm sorry, but to think anything else is simply naive. I think perhaps a better way to put this might be 'when they got together in places like Mintons or privately they exchanged ideas they couldn't get at on the commercial gig'. Here's Lou Donaldson, from that NY Times profile (found here): "Today, at 82, he remains a leading exponent of this soul-jazz approach. But even at its bluesiest, his playing remains informed by bebop. If the economics allowed it, he said, he would delve more into the bop canon. “I’d like to be playing that every night,” he said. “But unfortunately, that’s not the case today.” At most of his outdoor concerts, he said, the audience demands his soul-jazz favorites — and he delivers. Those favorites, he said, will figure prominently on Aug. 18, when he brings his quartet to Mount Vernon for a free set, produced by Jazz Forum Arts and Jazzmobile, in City Hall Plaza." Yeah. He found a way to entertain----being funny using the same lines that work, singing a comical blues, etc.----and he plays and doesn't change his playing. Lou is not near the top of popularity, but he works consistently and always worked. he bought a house from working. There aren't many young players I can think of that would think to do that (entertain and still play well) or know how anymore. Wycliffe Gordon is one. I heard him on the radio and he played good and entertained without talking down musically or with words.

If they paid me enough I'd dress up like a medieval lute player-----or Scaramouche

Very good points very well made

He's had a great life and seems to know it................ Thanks.

I really disagree with this. And history also disproves it, since until the 40s jazz musicians were considered entertainers, or worse, black entertainers, by white society----and that mindset is very difficult to break when one is trying to survive. It's a tribute to the geniuses that did do their thing and moved music forward that they could do it in the context of work. It's an uphill battle, and even dangerous career-wise, or, back then, even survival-wise. I have a recording of a concert I played where I asked Eddie Locke to talk about the meaning of jazz to the young people there who were ignorant of it. He made a huge point of the social aspects of the music and its' function as dance music, and said verbatim 'once in the night there would be a little time called 'hot time', where they would play solos like we're doing tonight'. And he played with some of the great soloists. They had discipline and knew what a gig required. I'm sorry, but to think anything else is simply naive. I think perhaps a better way to put this might be 'when they got together in places like Mintons or privately they exchanged ideas they couldn't get at on the commercial gig'. Also, music is a science of sound, so musicians listen and incorporate the best in all the sounds around. If you're really listening there are inspirations all around, whether its a dance or a concert setting. You listen, make mental notes and react. maybe a tune or improvisational idea will come out of it. Or maybe if an artist is sensitive enough something visual can be translated into sound and music. This is why we talk about 'color' and things like that in music.

And nobody should care about either of them. They send exactly the wrong message, and either are too lame to know or too cynically exploitative to care. Why does no one make a movie about Dizzy Gillespie? B/c he was a success and not a fucked up junkie? (I'm not saying that's all there is to Chet, just what seems, sadly, to be interesting to stupid people and those who would grab their srupid money by exploiting All I know, and care about, is his music----I realize that is atypical, and that's also sad). What does that say about peoples' interests? I realize the romantic imagery angle at work, but why can't a success story and a great role model like Diz be interesting also? I think it could.

A great way people could misjudge Chet is to read a bullshit claptrap of a 'biography' that came out a few years back---by a guy named James Gavin. I really wish people would boycott such sensational garbage, but the smarter ones will realize where it's at after a few sentences. A much better one came out by a Dutch author. I can't remember his name (someone help me out, please) but the guy knew about music, didn't talk out of his rear end, and it never sidestepped the addiction thing or other less appealing factors, he just didn't try to sell books with it. I felt the same way about that movie that came out in '89 or so (Let's Get Lost) as about Gavin's book: shameful image-pimping by an exploitative music no-nothing. But it had a great version of Zingaro, at least. Just thought I get it off my chest. Hope it wasn't a bringdown, but we've had enough sensational idiocy that gets a pass b/c people just don't know enough about music or the lives of its practitioners. The Dutch writer is Jeroen De Valk and the book is "Chet Baker: His Life and Music". http://www.jeroendevalk.nl/books/his_life_and_music_CB.html Right. Thanks.

I can't help but notice that you guys are getting off track by having side discussions of who's a better player, A or B. That's gonna help bring back the audience.....how? I suggest it may be more helpful to discuss why tastes changed and how it impacts on the subject at hand. Ex: a more 'technical' world=popularity of more players reflecting that in their work. Can musicians' understanding of such trends help them make a living without odious compromises? It might be more productive to talk about that or similar things.

Ah, yes, the Squirrel-Nut Rabbis. You really think that those Neo-Swing bands were on the verge of successfully "turning back the clock" in some long-term manner but failed to do so because of "stabs in the back administered by those who felt themselves to be the true and only "keepers of the flame" of jazz? It was, as you say, a more or less amiable fad, and when it had its day with one segment of the young dancing crowd, that was that. The objections of curmedgeons like myself was to those who proclaimed this stuff to be the music's artistic salvation, and I can't believe that one single dancer, booker, or club owner was deterred by what we had to say, assuming they were even aware of it. Those acts got gigs when they drew and didn't when things cooled down. Shades of Andrew Dice Clay. (Aside from the swing dancing thing) Man, there is no dichotomy between creativity and entertainment (as Pops and Gillespie and other giants have proved countless times) and many gulfs between art and the listener created by the artist him or herself. When things fuck up we have to look in the mirror----with the intention of fixing things. A lot of the audience shrinkage has been due to players so taken with themselves and their 'cleverness' that they think they do people a favor by showing up. If you don't care if people come or not, IMO do us all a favor and stay home. It's up to all of us musicians to get the audience back by starting out by saying hello at least and not having our heads up our asses the whole gig and ignoring paying customers whose pleasure is at least as important as ours. Don't misunderstand: I'm not advocating anyone changing their playing content(I do think music that's more cerebral than communicating emotion is gonna have a tougher time as a performing art----but one should still do it if that's what one is----just don't expect people to love you if you're not playing their lives as much as your own interior life) or play down to people----b/c they can smell that, too----but to play to them. I'm not telling anyone to mug or Tom or whatever else you want to call it (I like being a comedian myself, but playing more). But we have to get people on our side to want to like what we do, and it costs nothing to say hello, at least that. I think the air started going out of the balloon after bebop, the generation of imitators of Bird (many whom were excellent players) who took on a 'hip' attitude their heros never seemed to have in reality. Also the advent of LPs, allowing longer solo space was contemporaneous with more of a focus on the soloist and longer solos, and let's face it, not everyone is all that interesting playing long. I don't claim to have the answers. For myself I try to play as serious jazz I know how, and put on a good show---in a dignified, non-hammy way. All I know is that we had better take responsibilty to get the audience back ourselves----whatever it takes, within reason----and not wait for trends to change or Godot, Jesus, or Schneerson to save our asses. Look in the mirror, change what's wrong, accept what can't be changed.

Wow. So you met as a young phenom---and before he got sick. I became aware of him around '77 in NY. Bob Mover told me about him. He was playing then! He kicked ass in NY and was everyone's 1st call player in a heartbeat. People started playing and recording his tunes right away, too. He was always approachable, too, I found, and funnier than people would ever think. I've talked with occasionally him through the years, and his wife seems to like me. Never played, though, and I want to. I'd be curious what he was like back in '66, when he was getting his first wind----as a person and player.

There's also a set from the Vanguard you can hear. I didn't realize til now.

He has great things to say about art and generally. Around 13 minutes long. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=102625759 Go to on demand interview

I like Tiny. He's cool. The best kept secret among the guitarists of that period, though, is IMO Teddy Bunn. But Tiny was a pro and knew what he was doing. He worked a long time and could entertain, not just play. He sounds like he took some things from Charlie Christian, but you would have had to be on the scene right there to know what exactly was going on. There was a lot more sharing among musicians than nowadays. But if he did steal from Christian he had as good taste as Barney Kessel----and anyone else with any sense. If anyone runs into James Chirillo, he worked with Tiny at the West End in NY just before I came on the scene. He could tell you about Tiny. I think Tiny played one gig at the Jazz Cultural Theater that I heard, but I can't recall what he sounded like. The drummer was banging---according to him b/c Tiny asked him to (maybe he was losing his hearing) and the bass player that night----I'm pretty sure it was Hal Dotson---was real drug with the drummer also and not enjoying the gig. There are some good records, I'm sure. He always recorded with good people. Try to get stuff with Tatum, if only to hear how a guitar player keeps from getting rolled over. The stuff with Bird is good. I used to see trio records in the 70s. Don't have any names, sorry.