Does age matter for a jazz artist?

[JSngry]

Well. WE say that age doesn't matter, but the question as originally posed had at least an inference of asking the question in "industry" terms. and there, I would say that there, yes, age does matter, or does/did at certain times. If Young Lions are what's hot, every label will have one, and everybody else can fend for themselves (and Woody Shaw gets dropped from Columbia...). If Elder Statesmen are in vouge, the same thing.

Now, afaic, age doesn't amtter, but life experience, "seasoning" if you will, does. If it's usually true that seasoning comes with age, it's by no means always so, And - a lot of players get comfortable and/or complacent as they age. There's no hard and fast rules.

But overall, I'd have to say that age/life experience/whatever matters more if you're trying to play a style that's older than you are. We got loads, TONS even, of young neo-hardboppers today who can play the notes perfectly, and even swing them with fire and conviction, but the "flavor", the little things that let you know that this isn't just "music", it's REAL LIFE told in REAL TIME, ain't there. I'm skeptical as to whether these cats will ever get that deeply personal touch, because it's the music of a time and place that's hardly existent any more, if at all. Eric Alexander, for instance, no matter how great he plays, will never have the flavor of George Coleman, simply because George's music is/was of his life and times, and Eric's take on it is that of a history student, a highly skilled and dedicated student, but not somebody who is playing about a life and time that is completely thier own, either.

That's not a dis on the abilities of cats like Alexander, nor is it calling into question their sincerity/dedication/etc. It's just to point out that there IS a difference, and if you're somebody who has an inclination to hear/feel music in those "life-specific" terms, you can't help but notice it. If you're not, then you probably won't (and shouldn't - there is much to be said about the non-superficial entertainment value.of ANY type of music played well and with professional integrety). Neither way is necessarily right or wrong. It's just worth noting that we all look for (and get) different things out of music, depending on our personal tastes and needs.

[Brad]

Let's not start this debate again and raise ires. But here's a point about having the life experiences so you're not playing music as a history student: this may be right for jazz but what about an area of music like classical where people are history students since the original composers or performers are quite long gone. I don't think we'd necessarily impugn their musical interpretations. Life experiences no doubt influence what you play or how you react to certain situations (musically or not) but it's not necessarily the end all or be all and I think you'd agree with that.

[JSngry]

I would, but it's also a reason why I have a very difficult time becoming engaged in so many interpretations of classical music - I can hear the music, but I can't feel the life in it (and I have a strong hunch that the way it's so often played/interpreted now is pretty far removed from how it was done then, and not just because of the changes in instruments over the years. But I could be wrong!). I would hate for jazz to become classical music (at least in that way), but perhaps it's inevitable. Seems to be happening already...

No matter, not meaning to rekindle any arguments or anything, just pointing out that different people want/get different things out of music, as well as that there's no definitive right or wrong as to what those things are or aren't.

[Jazz Kat]

I think getting old does take its toll on some musicians. I guess more with horn players, because they become weak, but some can really blow. Haven't heard much of Art Blakey in his later years, but when he was on the Cos. Show, he did his fancy stick trick, and he hit the rims and stuff, and it didn't cook that much.

[chris olivarez]

Jim I'm not totally sure I'm following you but don't you think it's possible for an artist like Alexander to at least retain the essence of a paticular musical style and at the same time infuse his own life experience into that style and give it a genuine lived in feel?

[JSngry]

Up to a point, but only.

But again, this is just me.

[AllenLowe]

well, there are different issues of aging - Barry Harris is a much more profound pianist at 75 than he was at 30, though he was great even than. Max Roach, however, lost his way as he tried to emulate younger drummers; he became stiff and unswinging. Even Al Haig, in his 50s, , was not the player he was in his 20s; he at times spent too much effort trying to sound contemporary, and wandered from the style at which he was best. Similar issue with Art Pepper, who was great unless he was thinking about Coltrane. Coleman Hawkins grew as a tenor saxophonist (before his very last sad years). Dexter Gordon changed for the better, than got too stoned to care. Personally I think I have better taste at 50 than I had at 20, it's just hard getting the damned walker onto the stage -

[Rooster_Ties]

...but what about an area of music like classical where people are history students since the original composers or performers are quite long gone.  I don't think we'd necessarily impugn their musical interpretations.  Life experiences no doubt influence what you play or how you react to certain situations (musically or not) but it's not necessarily the end all or be all and I think you'd agree with that.

I would argue that there's something to be said for Life Experiences informing classical music interpretations and performances too.

I'm no expert (not by a long shot), but I've heard enough performances of instrumental chamber music, and solo concerti -- where the magic just wasn't happenin' -- that I think I can say that I'm pretty sure that what the performers bring to the table isn't just technical.

Case in point... There's a young (college age) classical pianist who is currently the music director at our church (we don't have an organ, but a 10-foot grand piano in our church auditorium/sanctuary). She's a really hot-shit player, studying to compete in the Van Cliburn International Piano Competition in about two years. And from all accounts, she's expected to do well too.

But my ears can tell you this person has not had enough Life Experience under her belt -- or at least not of the right kind as to inform her music, emotionally speaking.

Technically, she is quite good. Maybe even closer to "exceptionally good". But what she can't do is make the music "sing". Whether it's music close to her area of expertise (she programs a lot of Chopin and Tchaikovsky into our services), or even just simple hymn accompaniments, and playing charts with the choir... she approaches everything she plays in terms of primarily what's on the page. It's often to the point where the congregation has a tough time singing the hymns, because she doesn't let the music settle after the last cadence of each verse, and doesn't let the music "breath" at those places where it really needs to (i.e. when there's a triplet in the melody line, or simple syncopation).

I'm a semi-professional classical vocalist (I've sung in a professional symphony chorus for 10 years), and I've been very hesitant to sing any solo-work in our church since we hired this gal about two years ago. She's young -- college age -- and really needs some seasoning. And I would argue that she needs to get some more "life" under her belt. She has it all in the technical areas, but I don't think she's lived enough to really make the music "sing".

Will having more "life experience" alone fix this?? Probably not. But more technical study, absent "life experiences", can only fix things up to a certain point. I think classical players need both. (Just like jazz players)

PS: I'd be curious to hear Free For All's perspective on this, since he's a professional jazz musician, married to a professional classical musician.

Edit: She can sure play the shit out of Mozart though. Warning, Bias alert, bias alert!!! --> I think most "Classical"-era classical music (or at least the fast, showy stuff), needs way more "technical" bravado, and not as much "emotional/life"-stuff --- to come off well.

Edited February 4, 2005 by Rooster_Ties

[Guest che]

Ok last year I saw both Sonny Rollins and Tomasz Stanko in Concert, both getting on a bit. Now maybe they did not do the long solo's or quite have the energy they once had. But their sound, their tone and improvisation was all there.

Great stuff.

Che.