Morals, politics, crime and music

[JSngry]

I don't believe that "art" is intrinsically more important that treating people well.

Absolutely agree.

But I suspect that "art" and treating people well are not really intrinsically connected either (and centuries of human history would seem to bolster that suspicion).

Of course it's always better when they do, just that they don't always, nor do they "have" to.

It can be a m-f to work through sometimes, believe me, I know. But in the end, it is what it is, whatever it ends up being.

[seeline]

Jim, I wasn't meaning to start a debate; I was just posting some thoughts for discussion.

It's probably better if I just disappear from this thread, as the tone has changed considerably. (Though I'm not sure why.)

[JSngry]

Sorry, I wasn't attempting to "debate", merely discuss. Maybe it's one of those "personal style" things coupled with the impersonality of the written forum that makes it seem so?

Disappear if you must, and sorry if it seems that the "tone" has changed, but maybe, uh....consider not shrinking away once in a while, ok? You certainly have nothing to back down from and plenty to stand up for!

[seeline]

Thanks.

I think maybe the word I'm looking for is "confrontational," which really isn't my style. (Not to pin it on you; it seems to be fairly common on BBs.)

Edited June 17, 2008 by seeline

[JSngry]

I guess one person's "confrontational" is another person's "here's what I think about it".

I guess you've figured out by now that I'm not bashful about expressing myself but it really is just my opinions/feelings/whatever, and in no way do I feel that I'm "right" in any sense other than "this is where life has led me, this is the prism through which I see things". If I do not surrender that willingly or easily, it's not because I think that anybody else is "wrong", it's just that their "right" is not my "right", and just as I would not expect anybody else to believe something without a reason, I don't expect myself to either. But that's not to say that what's not a particularly compelling reason for me is not a perfectly legitimate and deeply compelling reason for somebody else. There's 10,000,000 stories in the Naked City, and once you put clothes on everybody, that number increases exponentially!

So hey, you wanna argue about that now?

(JUST KIDDING!!!!)

[seeline]

Jim, I tried posting again on another board recently.

Let's just say that I have no taste for anything remotely confrontational at the moment.

Cool?

[JSngry]

Totally.

[Big Beat Steve]

Agree with what Seeline said.

No matter how great somebody is as an artist, there is no excuse for mistreating or taking advantage of your fellow human beings. Even to artists the same rules apply as, say, to accountants (cf. JSngry or managers of multinational companies or ... you name it.

Some (most, in fact, I guess) get away with it, but those who don't have had it coming to them.

At any rate, I don't buy into this "a creative artist has to have severe personal shortcomings outside his artistic world in order to allow his artistry to unfold and every excuse is acceptable for this as long he is an artist of some stature and/or achievement". Artists are subject to the same overall rules that apply (or ought to apply) to everybody else.

If you look back into the past century of popular music, there have been numerous artists (including jazz musicians) whose careers have faltered not least of all because they acquired a notoriety for being "difficult to handle", unreliable, untrustworthy, cheating on their fellow musicians, or even committing criminal offenses, etc. etc. I don't know if I got your reasoning right, JSngry, but have all those who've fallen by the wayside that way BECAUSE of their personal shortcomings and DESPITE their artistic achievement been treated unfairly? I don't think so. Not all of them were sick dope fiends in need of medical or headshrink treatment, after all.

This would not prevent anybody from enjoying their musical legacy, but it would explain and justify reservations about according them unreserved star status in EVERY respect. Not more, not less.

[JSngry]

Agree with what Seeline said.

No matter how great somebody is as an artist, there is no excuse for mistreating or taking advantage of your fellow human beings. Even to artists the same rules apply as, say, to accountants (cf. JSngry or managers of multinational companies or ... you name it.

Some (most, in fact, I guess) get away with it, but those who don't have had it coming to them.

At any rate, I don't buy into this "a creative artist has to have severe personal shortcomings outside his artistic world in order to allow his artistry to unfold and every excuse is acceptable for this as long he is an artist of some stature and/or achievement". Artists are subject to the same overall rules that apply (or ought to apply) to everybody else.

If you look back into the past century of popular music, there have been numerous artists (including jazz musicians) whose careers have faltered not least of all because they acquired a notoriety for being "difficult to handle", unreliable, untrustworthy, cheating on their fellow musicians, or even committing criminal offenses, etc. etc. I don't know if I got your reasoning right, JSngry, but have all those who've fallen by the wayside that way BECAUSE of their personal shortcomings and DESPITE their artistic achievement been treated unfairly? I don't think so. Not all of them were sick dope fiends in need of medical or headshrink treatment, after all.

This would not prevent anybody from enjoying their musical legacy, but it would explain and justify reservations about according them unreserved star status in EVERY respect. Not more, not less.

WHOA now!

If I'm reading you right, you seem to think that by me acknowledging the presence of "unsavory" characters in the music world and confronting the very real need to "deal with them" at some point in some way (cf Duvivier & Goodman & damn near anybody with Mingus until, like, the near-end) if one is to have a sustainable career that I am somehow justifying, or even worse, excusing the unsavory behavior.

No such thing, I assure you. Bad be=havior is bad behavior, criminal acts are criminal acts, and assholes are assholes. Period. As I've maintained from the beginning, music (or "art" in general) is the message, musicians simply the deliverers of the message. You can have the same telegram delivered to your door by an exemplary citizen as you can by a total reprobate. One you might want to invite inside for some iced tea, the other you might want to sick your bulldog on, but either way, the telegram gets delivered, which, at the end of the day, is what the sender of the telegram hoped for. Of course it's better for everybody when the messenger is a Great Person, but, hey, life don't always roll out that way, so, uh.... be prepared, don't say you weren't warned, and don't be surprised. Shit does indeed happen, so watch your step lest you step in it.

And speaking of shit, I do sense that there is (and always has been) a strain of thought that passionately wishes for the shitless defecation. Good luck on that one!

[Hot Ptah]

You are right about something, JSngry. Music is not unique in having its highly negative characters and other aspects, which the neophyte encounters and is shocked by. I think that every profession has that baptism by fire period, in which the newcomer learns how the real world is very rough and unpleasant, deceitful and uncivil, downright evil at times.

I think that there are people in all professions who honestly love their profession, and persevere despite the negativity because of their love (and massive student loans).

Musicians do it in a more public setting, among other differences. You rarely read about the hot tempered tyrant who is an attorney or architect or investment banker, terrorizing new hires just out of school, and how they perform on their jobs despite the moral compromises and pressures. You certainly do not see their work in public, unlike musicians on a bandstand.

And there are few sensationalized biographies of a probate attorney who was a real terror to deal with and left a long string of brilliant estate plans in his wake, despite his personal shortcomings, violent outbursts, roving eye for the ladies, and reliance on overdoses of Diet Mountain Dew.

Musicians, actors and sports figures perform in the public eye and so we read about their personal flaws, which also exist in abundance in more private occupations.

Do we hesitate to have a truly great surgeon operate on us in a life and death situation, because he is curt to his staff and is reportedly involved in a dispute with the IRS over some questionable deductions? Why should we not listen to a jazz musician who is reportedly not very nice to people?

However, I can see that learning about a musician's deep flaws could allow one to appreciate the music without being impressed by the media hype and hero worship that had developed around the musician.

Edited June 17, 2008 by Hot Ptah

[A Lark Ascending]

No-one is expecting all musicians to be 'good boys' - as has been said above, musicians reflect humanity in general and will have the same mix. I might despise some of Wagner's ideas (and feel uncomfortable about the use put to his music by some admirers) but I can compartmentalise (as Daniel Barenboim can) and be drawn into the beauty of the music and the pull of the drama.

But there is a viewpoint - born out of 19thC Romanticism - that musicians (and others who anoint themselves as 'artists') can be excused such behaviour. That they are outside of the norms of the community, need to operate without it's constraints, can't make their 'art' otherwise (in that respect someone like Kerouac is a typical Romantic). There's an implication that a true 'artist' is only interesting when unshackled from the requirements of working within the mores of the community. And at some point this can turn to a lionising of the bad behaviour - at a populist level you see this in the way that misbehaviour of celebrities is celebrated (the press might appear to be outraged by Amy Winehouse but they're lapping up yet another demonstration of the high performing outsider). You get this everywhere from the playground (the naughty boy who soon gets a handful of acolytes saying what a cool guy he is, trying to bask in his notoriety) to the bulletin board!

In the end most of us are going to continue to listen to engaging music, no matter who a person shot or abused. I just tend to fall on the side of needing to say 'But no matter how great the music, that behaviour was wrong' rather than 'He was an artist, he has to be excused these things'.

At the same time I'm not going to heep vast praise on the musician who works in schools, gives to charity, addresses vital social issues yet makes dull music. But when the latter makes fantastic music, whilst working inside society, aware of communal obligations, then he or she will get my enthusiasm.

When a kid behaves badly it makes sense to reprimand them for the bad thing they've done, not yell at them for being a bad person. With bad boy musicians the same is true - separate the specific behaviour from the overall person.

Edited June 18, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[Big Beat Steve]

But there is a viewpoint - born out of 19thC Romanticism - that musicians (and others who anoint themselves as 'artists') can be excused such behaviour. That they are outside of the norms of the community, need to operate without it's constraints, can't make their 'art' otherwise (in that respect someone like Kerouac is a typical Romantic). There's an implication that a true 'artist' is only interesting when unshackled from the requirements of working within the mores of the community. And at some point this can turn to a lionising of the bad behaviour - at a populist level you see this in the way that misbehaviour of celebrities is celebrated (the press might appear to be outraged by Amy Winehouse but they're lapping up yet another demonstration of the high performing outsider). You get this everywhere from the playground (the naughty boy who soon gets a handful of acolytes saying what a cool guy he is, trying to bask in his notoriety) to the bulletin board!

In the end most of us are going to continue to listen to engaging music, no matter who a person shot or abused. I just tend to fall on the side of needing to say 'But no matter how great the music, that behaviour was wrong' rather than 'He was an artist, he has to be excused these things'.

Exactly ... that's what I was hinting at all along.

Thanks for summarizing it very much to the point, Bev.

[seeline]

I've personally seen some incredibly rude behavior justified by the statement "But he's a musician" and "I'm an artist."

Sorry, doesn't quite cut it.

[JSngry]

I've personally seen some incredibly rude behavior justified by the statement "But he's a musician" and "I'm an artist."

I think you mean attempted to be justified, no?

Truthfully, that's the saddest line of B.S. that anybody can pull, the attempt to wrap their developmental immaturity in the cloak of "artistry". I've seen that firsthand more than once, and have cursed it out, often rather bluntly, as well, especially when it involves people dropping their own ball and expecting me to pick up their slack. Sorry, I got my own shit to deal with, and some days are better than others, if you know what I mean. Sorry, but I don't play that, not now, not ever. Shit happens, sure, but when there's a pattern, even a macro-pattern, hey, grow the fuck up, ya' know?

Having said that, though...

There are a few people who really are wired differently than the rest of us, and whose behavior is just...different by nature. But there's a lot less of those than the "Romantics" would want to think, and there's more than enough posers of this type to stock a human shooting gallery well into the next decade. Anybody who wants to round them up and take them there will meet no immediate resistance from me...

[JSngry]

And also want to add that the "creative process" does tend to take one out of the realms of "normalcy" from time to time. It just does. But I do think that one has an obligation to apologize or otherwise "make right" whatever wrongs one might participate in when this happens. Often times, it's not the behavior itself that pisses me off, it's the failure to cop to it.

And btw, every bit as irritating as those whose behavior gets distracted by the creative process and don't/won't/can't cop to it are those who will adamantly refuse to accept that it can happen in the first place. These are the type of people who will not accept the fact that if you get an idea & are intently trying to focus in on it, that an interruption for something not life-threateningly urgent might be responded to with less than full grace, and no, it's not anything personal. Sorry, but it ain't like a faucet, ya' know? There's never really an excuse for rudeness, but sometimes there is a reason, and when it happens, if both sides can accept that reality and just....understand what the deal is/was, it can be copacetic. But not everybody can go there, on either side of the fence, and that's a drag.

Tell you what, between the people who won't cop to their own lapses and the people who are hellbent on not allowing anybody to have any, hey, that's enough to make anybody look elsewhere for real estate.

[andybleaden]

Having read this it reminds me of several arguments I have had about peoples bad behavior and 'excuses' when I used to work with offenders. Sure enough there are reasons why people do things that are bad. We can judge those reasons and choose to accept or reject them.

[Big Beat Steve]

Nothing to add to the last 2 posts by JSngy. Seems we haven't really been in disagreement all along.

As for some artists being "wired differently": Sure, and I don't think anybody will hold the way Bud Powell, for example, was "wired" against him (it more invites pity and sympathy by those who've been equipped better by nature to handle everyday life) but there is a HUUUUUGE difference between minds like Bud's (or momentary lapses in acknowledging the needs of others) and other artists who, while creating great art, actively and by their very own decisions and acts continuously treated their fellow human beings if not like shit, then certainly like lesser beings. And when a certain limit is exceeded there just is no excuse for that (and I don't think it always is a matter of "choosing to accept or reject" the reasons why one does things "that are bad". Some acts can only be rejected as long as there is a canon of commonly accepted standards of how to get along with each other).

Edited June 18, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[seeline]

I've personally seen some incredibly rude behavior justified by the statement "But he's a musician" and "I'm an artist."

I think you mean attempted to be justified, no?

Truthfully, that's the saddest line of B.S. that anybody can pull, the attempt to wrap their developmental immaturity in the cloak of "artistry". I've seen that firsthand more than once, and have cursed it out, often rather bluntly, as well, especially when it involves people dropping their own ball and expecting me to pick up their slack. Sorry, I got my own shit to deal with, and some days are better than others, if you know what I mean. Sorry, but I don't play that, not now, not ever. Shit happens, sure, but when there's a pattern, even a macro-pattern, hey, grow the fuck up, ya' know?

Having said that, though...

There are a few people who really are wired differently than the rest of us, and whose behavior is just...different by nature. But there's a lot less of those than the "Romantics" would want to think, and there's more than enough posers of this type to stock a human shooting gallery well into the next decade. Anybody who wants to round them up and take them there will meet no immediate resistance from me...

Well, in their minds, they were justified, so that's why I worded my post as I did.

As far as being wired differently, Bud Powell comes to mind immediately - his story always makes me feel very sad, so I try to avoid reading bio. material on him.

Edited June 18, 2008 by seeline

[A Lark Ascending]

There are a few people who really are wired differently than the rest of us, and whose behavior is just...different by nature.

I can see that. Most misbehaviour in a classroom is just bad behviour - kids wanting to show off, kids who've never had clear boundaries etc. But some behave badly because of the way they are wired and some because they've lived through endless trauma and have not been effectively socialised. I'm sure that's true in the cultural world too.

[randissimo]

Some musicians have a "Dr. Jekyll- Mr. Hyde" abberation. One example would be Jaco Pastorius. There is a wellspring of stories. I personally know a couple of musicians who have had crazy experiences with Jaco. My cousin Scott, a bass player, was in New York working with Horace Silver back in 1987 when Jaco came in bare foot one night and wanted to sit in and got a bit belligerent when Horace declined his offer. He had to be asked to leave by the management. Jaco had some kind of bi-polar disorder that could be treated with lithium and he too often wasn't taking his meds and drinking.. It ended up costing him his life in that bar in Florida. Jaco forever changed the sound of the electric bass and it's innovative role in creative music.

I knew a drummer in Paris who recently passed away and was another example of this. When he was straight and sober was a really nice cat and very insightful and one of the baddest drummers I've ever known. But he would get a jones for heroin and get loaded or if he couldn't get it would drink himself into a funk and either way would get really evil.. Also know a brilliant piano player in Detroit who has the "Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hyde" problem with alcohol. When he's sober he's a great guy and plays as brilliant as anybody out there. When he's drinking he's bitter and can get loudly sarcastic and confrontational. People seldom call him these days because you just don't know who's going to show up on the bandstand.

[seeline]

The "Jekyll-Hyde" problem is everywhere in this life - musicians (and "artists" in general) are hardly the only group of people where it can be found.

And a lot of "Jekyll-Hyde" types are physically and emotionally abusive.

so nothing you're saying surprises me, Randy. (I have some unfortunate RL experiences to draw on where this is concerned, and have seen it happening in many other peoples' lives as well.)

Edited June 18, 2008 by seeline

[seeline]

chauncey, please cool it with the insults.

As for "mentally ill," that's true of most abusive people - and I do not mean that in a sarcastic or uncompassionate way. They are ill; they need help; their illnesses (often coupled with drug and/or alcohol abuse) are played out at others' expense.

/end threadjack.

Edited June 18, 2008 by seeline

[RDK]

Christ, how many aliases does Clem have?

[7/4]

Also know a brilliant piano player in Detroit who has the "Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hyde" problem with alcohol. When he's sober he's a great guy and plays as brilliant as anybody out there. When he's drinking he's bitter and can get loudly sarcastic and confrontational. People seldom call him these days because you just don't know who's going to show up on the bandstand.

Allergic to alcohol.

.

[Jazzmoose]

I knew a drummer in Paris who recently passed away and was another example of this. When he was straight and sober was a really nice cat and very insightful and one of the baddest drummers I've ever known. But he would get a jones for heroin and get loaded or if he couldn't get it would drink himself into a funk and either way would get really evil..

Deep is in Paris?