Keith Jarrett: A One-of-a-Kind Artist Prepares for His Solo

[A Lark Ascending]

Totally subjective, sure. But as such, that's my feelings about all that.

Subjective indeed. I jettison the 'spiritual' stuff from both of them equally when listening.

I wouldn't question Coltrane's much greater importance for a moment - but I think that position is based on musical and historical grounds.

Who was/is the most spiritually 'honest' or 'adult'....well, I think that's mainly projection from the listener. From my (very partisan) viewpoint it seems equally daft. But it doesn't stop me enjoying the music.

[Dave James]

For those who may have formed the impression that I live for the opportunity to trash Keith Jarrett, I should like to report that this very evening I downloaded Fort Yawuh and Treasure Island from iTunes.

Up over and out.

[JSngry]

Totally subjective, sure. But as such, that's my feelings about all that.

I wouldn't question Coltrane's much greater importance for a moment - but I think that position is based on musical and historical grounds.

My point exactly! There's a "level" in Coltrane's work that is not present in Jarrett's. Which is not to say that Jarrett does not attain very high levels, just that Coltrane was, well, you know, "one of those people" who just do more than that, musically and historically. The "spiritual" angle might have been what drove it, but it got there and stayed there quite on it's own. With Jarrett, the whole "mystical" angle seems to not just drive the creation of the music, but also to define it when it succeeds as well as when it fails.

That's really not fair, becuase one thing that Jarrett can do exceptionally well is phrase a melody with sublimity like very few others. And of course, yeah, there's skill, craft, work in that. But the differnce between him and Trane in that regardis that Trane stipualted to the work in advance. His work/practice ethic was legendary even in his lifetime. Jarrett certainly works quite hard at his craft, but he seems to want to deny that part of it and instead focus on the "magic".

Well, good for him, but anybody who knows how music gats made knows that magic is only a part of the equation, often not even the most important part. But to "sell" that as reality seems tome to be more about "neediness" of ego than anything else. There is an audience, obviously, and good for them, but me, I want to hear a cat play, not... be a drama queen, not unless that's a byproduct of the playing. When it becomes the essence of the playing, as it sometimes does with Jarrett, that's when I leave.

[7/4]

I wouldn't mind seeing a discussion of Jarrett's classical influences. I'm not real clear on who they are.

Yes, that would be interesting.

I recall reading one of Gary Giddins collections of reviews where he got terribly upset about the Romantic-era influences on Jarrett. Always struck me as strange that he could be castigated for having Romantic influences; if he'd been influenced by Webern or Boulez he'd have got the thumbs up. Note to musicians - make sure you choose your influences from the approved list.

Seriously...maybe he'd blow me away if he had those kind of influences....

Perhaps. But if he'd had those influences he'd be of little interest to the mass of listeners who have gained pleasure from his music over the years. There are other pianists with such influences who can satisfy the more 'discriminating' listener.

I know that, of course. I'm still trying to find out why people think he's so wonderful.

[A Lark Ascending]

Totally subjective, sure. But as such, that's my feelings about all that.

I wouldn't question Coltrane's much greater importance for a moment - but I think that position is based on musical and historical grounds.

My point exactly! There's a "level" in Coltrane's work that is not present in Jarrett's.

Agree totally...though based on instinct rather than knowledge. I'm not equpped to musically analyse either. I can only react as a listener.

I want to hear a cat play, not... be a drama queen, not unless that's a byproduct of the playing. When it becomes the essence of the playing, as it sometimes does with Jarrett, that's when I leave.

Well, I suppose you get an element of that with the vocalising on records; but otherwise...apart from a somewhat sanctimonious atmosphere at times...you're spared it without any visuals (I'm not a DVD buyer - even if I was I don't think I could cope with a Jarrett DVD).

I do know what you mean - Over the years I've come to prefer Paul Bley's sparer approach (I mention him, simply because he also does those extended solo pieces quite regularly). And someone like John Taylor might come from the same 'romantic' end of the jazz spectrum but you never feel you are in church.

Edited February 1, 2009 by Bev Stapleton

[A Lark Ascending]

I know that, of course. I'm still trying to find out why people think he's so wonderful.

Because he has a melodicism that appeals to a wider audience? Because his harmonic language is familiar to a wide audience where more spartan pianists give little for the new or casual listener to hang onto? Because he was an entry point to jazz for so many and is still held in great affection?

Plus a large dollop of marketing which has raised him to a status and visibility above other equally enjoyable pianists.

Remember, most listeners do not listen to music with slide rule and graph paper in hand. They react to direct emotion couched in a familiar language. Jarrett speaks that language and is not afraid to emote. This is, of course, a reason why many more seasoned listeners don't care for him. They are often suspicious of emotion displayed without irony, rich 19thC harmony, melodies that are obviously pretty.

Which is fine - it stops being fine when they slag him off for not fitting with their particular set of rules. Jarrett may be setting out to pander to popularity; but he may equally be quite deliberately aiming to communicate with a relatively broad (in jazz terms at least) audience.

Edited February 1, 2009 by Bev Stapleton

[7/4]

Remember, most listeners do not listen to music with slide rule and graph paper in hand. They react to direct emotion couched in a familiar language. Jarrett speaks that language and is not afraid to emote. This is, of course, a reason why many more seasoned listeners don't care for him. They are often suspicious of emotion displayed without irony, rich 19thC harmony, melodies that are obviously pretty.

I don't.

I'll get around to listening to Jarrett closer eventually, maybe after my Debussy listening binge.

[A Lark Ascending]

Remember, most listeners do not listen to music with slide rule and graph paper in hand. They react to direct emotion couched in a familiar language. Jarrett speaks that language and is not afraid to emote. This is, of course, a reason why many more seasoned listeners don't care for him. They are often suspicious of emotion displayed without irony, rich 19thC harmony, melodies that are obviously pretty.

I don't.

Not saying you do. But I find that more committed listeners - especially those who are musicians or who have a technical musical knowledge - can lose sight (!) of how music sounds to an ordinary listener. And by far the majority of listeners are ordinary listeners.

I'll get around to listening to Jarrett closer eventually, maybe after my Debussy listening binge.

Not sure that's a good idea! However much I enjoy much of Jarrett's music, he has nowhere near the range of Debussy.

[7/4]

Remember, most listeners do not listen to music with slide rule and graph paper in hand. They react to direct emotion couched in a familiar language. Jarrett speaks that language and is not afraid to emote. This is, of course, a reason why many more seasoned listeners don't care for him. They are often suspicious of emotion displayed without irony, rich 19thC harmony, melodies that are obviously pretty.

I don't.

Not saying you do. But I find that more committed listeners - especially those who are musicians or who have a technical musical knowledge - can lose sight (!) of how music sounds to an ordinary listener. And by far the majority of listeners are ordinary listeners.

I tend to forget that my listening habits are not ordinary.

I'll get around to listening to Jarrett closer eventually, maybe after my Debussy listening binge.

Not sure that's a good idea! However much I enjoy much of Jarrett's music, he has nowhere near the range of Debussy.

I've been supplementing this with doses of Bach and Handel the last few days.

[Larry Kart]

...that vague Paul-Bley-Sodomizes-Bill-Evans-While-Ornette-Gives-Instructions-And Merv-Griffin-Shouts-Approval nebulosity...

The man is on a roll.

[A Lark Ascending]

I tend to forget that my listening habits are not ordinary.

By 'ordinary' listener I just mean the person whose listens without being a musician or otherwise professionally involved in music (writer, producer, administrator, record label owner etc).

Though in one respect most contributors to a site like this are not going to be 'ordinary' given the sheer volume of music we listen to/purchase. Some draw their sense of identity with the professionals; others with the wider listening public.

[7/4]

I tend to forget that my listening habits are not ordinary.

By 'ordinary' listener I just mean the person whose listens without being a musician or otherwise professionally involved in music (writer, producer, administrator, record label owner etc).

Though in one respect most contributors to a site like this are not going to be 'ordinary' given the sheer volume of music we listen to/purchase. Some draw their sense of identity with the professionals; others with the wider listening public.

Yeah - whatever.

Now that we've established that my listening habits are extraordinary, I should be treated accordingly.

[7/4]

Next up...does Keith Jarrett swing?

dB

[CJ Shearn]

back to the subject that was brought up above Keith and groove, the groove that the trio gets into on the outro of "Solar" on the "Live at Open Theater East" DVD (reissued by ECM as disc 1 of "Live in Japan '93/96") is unreal.

[mjzee]

Also re swing, check out:

New Dance (from Nude Ants)

What Is This Thing Called Love (from Whisper Not)

Autumn Leaves - Up For It (from Up For It)

[A Lark Ascending]

Next up...does Keith Jarrett swing?

dB

How about 'Does Keith Jarrett swing 'hard' enough to spiritually connect with the blues?"

Awesome!

[jazzbo]

I guess I disagree with Jim re: Jarrett. I hear a lot of Jarrett's expressiveness as rhapsody, and I enjoy the shifting planes of composed and invented I hear in the solo material.

That trio. . .it can swing, it can roll in rubato, it can careen along almost chaotically, and it can produce a triumvirate version of that rhapsody. These are masters at working together, working together.

[WorldB3]

I guess I disagree with Jim re: Jarrett. I hear a lot of Jarrett's expressiveness as rhapsody, and I enjoy the shifting planes of composed and invented I hear in the solo material.

That trio. . .it can swing, it can roll in rubato, it can careen along almost chaotically, and it can produce a triumvirate version of that rhapsody. These are masters at working together, working together.

I agree, though it took me awhile to really get how brilliant that trio is, sure Jarrett is great but last year as I got really into Changeless and My Foolish Heart I found myself having a "I get it moment" and it was pretty profound.

[JSngry]

I guess I disagree with Jim re: Jarrett. I hear a lot of Jarrett's expressiveness as rhapsody, and I enjoy the shifting planes of composed and invented I hear in the solo material.

That trio. . .it can swing, it can roll in rubato, it can careen along almost chaotically, and it can produce a triumvirate version of that rhapsody. These are masters at working together, working together.

I'd not disagree with any of that, Lon. Where we might have a difference of opinion is the frequency with which it happens "naturally" as opposed to "forced".

Notice I did not say "contrived", because I do not believe that Jarrett is in any way cheap about or with his music. But I do think that he has a history of letting process and outcome become one and the same thing, and that's something that kinda bothers me personally.

[jlhoots]

I guess I disagree with Jim re: Jarrett. I hear a lot of Jarrett's expressiveness as rhapsody, and I enjoy the shifting planes of composed and invented I hear in the solo material.

That trio. . .it can swing, it can roll in rubato, it can careen along almost chaotically, and it can produce a triumvirate version of that rhapsody. These are masters at working together, working together.

I agree with Lon.

[Shawn]

Very good posts by Jim and Lon...and I find myself falling somewhere in the middle between these two viewpoints.

[JSngry]

Hey, don't get me wrong, I do dig Jarrett, have many of his recordings, and do consider him an "important" musician.

It's just that his work is not without what I would consider "baggage", and that baggage can sometimes really, really rub me the wrong way. But when it's not there, hey, I can go there right along with him, and quite gladly.

[jazzbo]

I guess I disagree with Jim re: Jarrett. I hear a lot of Jarrett's expressiveness as rhapsody, and I enjoy the shifting planes of composed and invented I hear in the solo material.

That trio. . .it can swing, it can roll in rubato, it can careen along almost chaotically, and it can produce a triumvirate version of that rhapsody. These are masters at working together, working together.

I'd not disagree with any of that, Lon. Where we might have a difference of opinion is the frequency with which it happens "naturally" as opposed to "forced".

Notice I did not say "contrived", because I do not believe that Jarrett is in any way cheap about or with his music. But I do think that he has a history of letting process and outcome become one and the same thing, and that's something that kinda bothers me personally.

Well I just don't get this from him so I guess it must not bother me, personally or impersonally.

[JSngry]

Hey, if it bothered you and you didn't get it, that would be something to be worried about!

Funny thing about Jarrett though, for all his railings against electricity in music, I think that his least "self-conscious" playing was his electric work with Miles. That stuff just...came out in a way that appears to be uninterrupted and unfiltered. "Unworried about" might be the best way to put it. And not just for that work, but for all of his best work. Unworried about.

The time to worry is when you practice. When you play, it's time to play, not worry. If you're constantly worrying about your playing while you're doing it, something ain't right yet.

[marcello]

I don't hear that at all. Jarrett is a highly melodic improviser.