Musicians dress

[paul secor]

I listen to a lot of music, and many types of music, but I don't listen to be entertained. Perhaps some may see that as a fault or limitation, but I wouldn't change my listening habits for anything.

[Chuck Nessa]

If the music is good the costume doesn't matter unless it is used as a way to get the audience into the music. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. Everything else is ephemera.

[colinmce]

http://www.indabamusic.com/studio_access/g.../6199-jazz-bums

[tkeith]

http://www.indabamusic.com/studio_access/g.../6199-jazz-bums

And I'd submit that Osby is a perfect example of a musician who should concentrate more on his musical statement than his wardrobe.

[seeline]

I haven't played out in a while, but ... I have to say that I'm not a big fan of people looking sloppy. (Though much depends on the venue.)

it's not that hard to run a comb or brush through your hair, or to put on a halfway-decent looking pair of pants, shirt, skirt - whatever. (My compromise, re. jeans, is normally to wear black ones that are pretty new - they usually look black in stage lighting.)

I do think performers (and imo, anyone who's on a stage or a bandstand is one) owe an audience some respect. I realize some of you might not agree, but hey, this is opinion, not a rule.

Always wise to have a spare pair of khakis and black pants, white shirt/blouse, I think. You never know when you might need them.

[fasstrack]

I've played gigs where what we wore was a major part of the discussion, and we looked very "pro," but it was some jive-ass nonsense we were playing. I've played gigs in sweat pants and sesame street tee (which I'm currently wearing) that were lights out. The venue has a lot to do with it, but we typically dress casual. Musicians can perform nude if they're saying something, I couldn't care any less.

I saw Donny McCaslin a few years back with Bruno Raberg, Ben Monder and some drummer named Giussepi something-or-other. Donny wore a turtle neck and dockers, Bruno had on a sweater, the drummer had a button up shirt by had not shaven in days and likely hadn't showered over the same period. I'm not sure he owned a hair brush. Ben Monder looked as if he'd crawled out of a foot locker 20 minutes before they hit. All the music that day came from the rhythm section, particularly drums and bass. I guess my point is, who cares what they were wearing? DM could not have looked more polite and presentable and that's precisely how he played it and it was boring as hell.

Jazz is not a "show" like other forms of music tend to be. If you're that distracted by the outfits, there's a good chance you won't understand the music anyway.

It's not about 'being distracted by the outfits', but about showing you're a professional and respect yourself, the music, and the listeners. And, with all due respect, I'm also a musician, a very serious, experienced, and dedicated one and I think you are kidding yourself when you say jazz is not 'a show'. I understand what you mean, I think: that it's not choreographed and playing to cheap emotions, has depth and all that----but club owners consider it a show, audiences want to be entertained, not have something fly over their heads. An old friend, the late Clarence 'C'. Sharpe used to say 'jazz ain't nothin' but show business---and I know exactly what he meant. You can be as 'deep' as you want with your ideas and concepts, etc., but you still need to communicate something to people and connect. That doesn't mean one has to jump around or act like an ass, but being a little funny, entertaining, yes, looking nice will never take away from how well you play. It will just add to the package IMO. Finally, I really take exception to the comment about audiences possibly not understanding the music b/c they're too wrapped up in the externals. I've been surprised again and again by what level 'ordinary' people hear on---despite what we musicians might assume they are thinking about. I could tell you a million stories. I think the problem lies with musicians who think they're so damn deep they're doing people a favor showing up.

Playing in front of people is give-and-take. It's the musician's responsibility to sound and give his best and also to communicate something to the public he or she is before (even if its 2 people). It's the audience's resonsibilty also to meet the artist halfway if they've never perhaps been down this particular road before. But it's my view that anything (within reason and without resorting to gimmicks) the performer can do to make the audience realize they are serious about what they are doing will help their case in terms of people wanting to listen to what's happening is worth doing.

Edited October 28, 2009 by fasstrack

[tkeith]

fasstrack -- we'll have to agree to disagree. Many audiences, particularly here in the northeast, are completely full of shit. I'm sorry you take exception to that, but it happens to be very true.

I think we can all agree on one thing for sure, much of this depends on the venue. We definitely were conscious of dress when we played an auditorium gig at an area college, but the Sesame Street t-shirt gig was a bar gig (and I was sick -- I typically try not to fall into the description of Monder's outfit that I gave, as you noted, out of self-respect). Nonetheless, I've seen George Garzone play gigs in sweatpants and a sleeveless t-shirt where he blew the walls down. I've seen others (who shall remain nameless) wear beautiful suits and not say shit. I'll take the former, thank you.

As for whether or not Jazz is a show, we're debating semantics, which is pointless. There are certainly those who consider it that way, but my mind tells me it is not. A show if rife with choreography; Jazz is (or should be) about spontaneity. Yes, you're presenting a 'product' but when you begin to think of it that way, the music suffers (see Marsalis, Wynton).

[fasstrack]

fasstrack -- we'll have to agree to disagree. Many audiences, particularly here in the northeast, are completely full of shit. I'm sorry you take exception to that, but it happens to be very true.

I think we can all agree on one thing for sure, much of this depends on the venue. We definitely were conscious of dress when we played an auditorium gig at an area college, but the Sesame Street t-shirt gig was a bar gig (and I was sick -- I typically try not to fall into the description of Monder's outfit that I gave, as you noted, out of self-respect). Nonetheless, I've seen George Garzone play gigs in sweatpants and a sleeveless t-shirt where he blew the walls down. I've seen others (who shall remain nameless) wear beautiful suits and not say shit. I'll take the former, thank you.

As for whether or not Jazz is a show, we're debating semantics, which is pointless. There are certainly those who consider it that way, but my mind tells me it is not. A show if rife with choreography; Jazz is (or should be) about spontaneity. Yes, you're presenting a 'product' but when you begin to think of it that way, the music suffers (see Marsalis, Wynton).

Yeah, I guess we agree to disagree. Sorry you had bad experiences with audiences. And why go there re Wynton? That doesn't add anything but negativity to the discussion.

Spontaneity has to do with being in focus and listening (read: reacting to the cats on the stand)---period. That's what raises the level of the performance, listening and reacting. And the audience is part of it---which doesn't mean you play down or cater.

No one wants to think they are a 'product'-----but the realities of being performers in the land of capitalism makes us exactly that. Being aware of how people 'sell' you shouldn't affect anything you play. It's just part of the bigger picture and I don't like living in a fool's paradise myself.

I think the minute someone labels you 'jazz' it raises a sea of expectations. It gets on my nerves. I'd rather they just call it music and let people listen with fresh and open ears. I have a myspace page with things I wrote in a few styles and I can't get the word 'jazz' off there---it annoys the hell out of me. It's not that I'm not proud to be a jazz musician. It's just that I don't want people's reactions pre-determined by what they've been told 'jazz' is. I really believe a big part of what we do is tied to trusting what people can hear if given a chance. They don't have to read critics or eggheads or ask some 'expert' opinion. Just give the music a chance.

Just listen---player or audience----that's the answer for me.

[Tom Storer]

One nice bit of irony is that I have heard people sneer with condescension about neoboppers wearing suits, and then insist that how a musician dresses has no importance whatsoever.

[Big Wheel]

One nice bit of irony is that I have heard people sneer with condescension about neoboppers wearing suits, and then insist that how a musician dresses has no importance whatsoever.

Er...how is that ironic? In my experience such sneering isn't criticizing the wearing of suits but rather the idea (implied or directly expressed by many of the neoboppers in question) that your performance or worth as a musician is somehow better if everyone adheres to a dress code of wearing suits. That's an arguable position to take, and it comes in a variety of flavors from "only the music matters" to "the goal of playing this music is not to make a digestible product for bourgeois white people", but it certainly isn't ironic.

Parallel example from the political world: Neoconservatives are obsessed with the power of "will" in issues of foreign policy - they believe that wars are won and lost depending on who has a greater will to win. Now, I a) find the idea of "will" to be completely lacking in importance in war and thus I b) sneer at neoconservatives on a regular basis for holding such laughably misguided ideas. But there's nothing ironic about my doing both a) and b) together.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Big Wheel

[Big Beat Steve]

@Big Wheel:

Isn't the irony rather in the fact that some seem to claim that the outfit doesn't matter yet sneer at those who really take care of their outfit? Note the fine difference: Tom S. was referring to those who sneered at musicians wearing suits and NOT (necessarily) to those who sneered at musicians wearing suits and having not much to say. That's a HUGE difference.

I'd venture a guess there are many who do take pride in appearing well-dressed yet have a LOT to say on their horns.

So those who sneer at THAT would be well advised to rethink because if the outfit doesn't matter then a smart outfit per se doesn't matter either and there is nothing to sneer about.

And it's not about being ironic yourself. The irony comes from what you do, regardless of whether you meant it to be ironic.

Splitting hairs? I'd rather say it's a fine line that can make all the diffrence.

[fasstrack]

I'd venture a guess there are many who do take pride in appearing well-dressed yet have a LOT to say on their horns.

So those who sneer at THAT would be well advised to rethink because if the outfit doesn't matter then a smart outfit per se doesn't matter either and there is nothing to sneer about.

And it's not about being ironic yourself. The irony comes from what you do, regardless of whether you meant it to be ironic.

Well said, indeed

[clifford_thornton]

on the other hand I remember that topless cellist who was around in the 1960s -

Yeah, Nam June Paik's lady, Charlotte Moorman.

[A Lark Ascending]

I don't care what musicians wear (though I do get irritated by self-consciously hip dressing, probably because I'm self-consciously unhip). Just as long as they (or the management) don't tell me what to dress in.

I've always found the 'dressing up' nature of classical music off-putting. I recall finding my first few classical concerts in the mid-70s a bit daunting - in the UK classical music is still very much associated with a social/intellectual elite, one that was outside my direct experience. Those running concerts would probably claim the penguin suits etc are all to do with marking out the 'serious' nature of what is going to happen musically. I still feel it's equally about keeping the riff-raff out.

[tkeith]

I think the minute someone labels you 'jazz' it raises a sea of expectations. It gets on my nerves. I'd rather they just call it music and let people listen with fresh and open ears. I have a myspace page with things I wrote in a few styles and I can't get the word 'jazz' off there---it annoys the hell out of me. It's not that I'm not proud to be a jazz musician. It's just that I don't want people's reactions pre-determined by what they've been told 'jazz' is. I really believe a big part of what we do is tied to trusting what people can hear if given a chance. They don't have to read critics or eggheads or ask some 'expert' opinion. Just give the music a chance.

Just listen---player or audience----that's the answer for me.

About this we fully agree.

As for the Wynton comment, because that's how I feel about his music. it's my opinion, not an attempt to be inflammatory. Funny, I was pretty hard on my description of Monder and very critical of Donny McCaslin, but that's not taken personal. I mention Wynton and I'm being negative. Perhaps we're accustomed to read into such statements.

Player or audience, listen. About that we agree. Let me ask you, if Dexter Gordon were playing in sweat pants, would you listen? If Kenny G were playing in a tuxedo, would you listen?

[tkeith]

Since the neobopper debate seemed to evolve out of my comment, I'll address it in plain English. I'm not down on guys who wear suits, and certainly not down on them BECAUSE they wear suits. I'm down on the notion that it makes any difference in their playing. There is a specific group of guys (and naming one of them seemed to ruffle some feathers) who, in my estimation, seem to spend as much time worrying about their wardrobe as they do the music. As a consequence, I find their music uninteresting and programmatic. We can debate whether their wardrobe is a conscious choice or not, but I don't ever recall reading interviews in the NYT with Hank Mobley where he discussed his preference in underwear. The clothes may make the man, but they don't make the music.

Here's a separate question: What about musicians (David S. Ware and William Parker come to mine) who wear African clothing? Eddie Gale and Dick Griffin frequently wear leather; is that appropriate dress? I'm sorry, but the topic seems fairly pointless if the music is good.

[seeline]

Those running concerts would probably claim the penguin suits etc are all to do with marking out the 'serious' nature of what is going to happen musically. I still feel it's equally about keeping the riff-raff out.

Maybe. But the tux and/or black pants/skirt and white shirt thing actually makes it fairly easy for musicians to have a few things in the closet that are "work clothes." I've always liked the idea, and actually like wearing the clothes. Black is very practical... and it doesn't show stains or marks in the way that most other colors do.

Putting on "gig clothes" tends to get me int a frame of mind where I'm thinking mainly about the music I'm going to be playing... which isn't a bad thing at all, for me personally.

(I should add that I've never had to deal with full-dress formal attire, which means that I've never had to spend the money on a women's "monkey suit" equivalent, though I have found some nicely-tailored tux jackets in thrift shops that have worked well for theatre gigs where I've been seated near a stage runway and need to be heard but not seen...)

I also wonder if a lot of the formalwear thing is more about custom than about ideology. My guess is that that's often the case, but it seems that I have a slightly different perspective on it, overall.

Edited October 29, 2009 by seeline

[Big Wheel]

@Big Wheel:

Isn't the irony rather in the fact that some seem to claim that the outfit doesn't matter yet sneer at those who really take care of their outfit? Note the fine difference: Tom S. was referring to those who sneered at musicians wearing suits and NOT (necessarily) to those who sneered at musicians wearing suits and having not much to say. That's a HUGE difference.

See, I don't think the difference is huge at all. In fact I think it's rather a distinction without a difference. Look, almost nobody sneers at suits because the player is taking care of his outfit. People generally look good in suits, and few are so petty to simply go after that. Rather, the sneering is because the suit connotes a bunch of cultural notions (see Bev's post) that are often going on in the head of the guy wearing the suit. It isn't contingent on how well or poorly the cat plays (although I figure that playing badly or playing in a style that the sneerers are not a fan of is likely to amplify the sneers).

To put it a little differently, those who are critical of the suit while saying attire has no importance to the music aren't being self-contradictory because their criticism is of the person and their attitude, not the music that they are making.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Big Wheel

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I don't care what musicians wear (though I do get irritated by self-consciously hip dressing, probably because I'm self-consciously unhip). Just as long as they (or the management) don't tell me what to dress in.

I've always found the 'dressing up' nature of classical music off-putting. I recall finding my first few classical concerts in the mid-70s a bit daunting - in the UK classical music is still very much associated with a social/intellectual elite, one that was outside my direct experience. Those running concerts would probably claim the penguin suits etc are all to do with marking out the 'serious' nature of what is going to happen musically. I still feel it's equally about keeping the riff-raff out.

You're probably right, but have you ever been to Glyndebourne? My wife and I and a couple of friends got cheapo tickets once from a friend who ran a record shop. No penguins there - but it was an afternoon gig so, during the intervals, everyone went to have their smoked salmon sandwiches and champers on the lawns. (Ariadne auf Naxos)

Very elite. We all lowered the tone of the place a peg or two. And we sneaked into Glynde House and had a look at the library, instead of having sarnies, and nearly got turned off the place.

MG

[Tom Storer]

There is a specific group of guys (and naming one of them seemed to ruffle some feathers) who, in my estimation, seem to spend as much time worrying about their wardrobe as they do the music. As a consequence, I find their music uninteresting and programmatic.

This sounds very much like you are blaming faults in the music on the musicians' sartorial attitudes. They pay a lot of attention to their wardrobe and "as a consequence" you don't like their music?

[Tom Storer]

To put it a little differently, those who are critical of the suit while saying attire has no importance to the music aren't being self-contradictory because their criticism is of the person and their attitude, not the music that they are making.

Look at it this way: if some Wynton fan were to go to a concert of free improv played by musicians wearing dirty jeans and T-shirts, and then came away saying "That music was terrible! Look at how those musicians dress! So sloppy! No respect!", I submit that many free improv fans would say "That person doesn't understand that music has nothing to do with wardrobe! He is hung up on bourgeois pretensions and superficial appearance!" And then they would go to a Wynton concert and say "That music was terrible! Look at those expensive suits! All pretense and conformism!"

The fact that the audience does look at the musicians, and does speculate (and I emphasize "speculate," because that's all it is) about what their dress implies about their music, puts the lie to the notion that dress has no effect on the music listening experience.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Tom Storer

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

To put it a little differently, those who are critical of the suit while saying attire has no importance to the music aren't being self-contradictory because their criticism is of the person and their attitude, not the music that they are making.

Look at it this way: if some Wynton fan were to go to a concert of free improv played by musicians wearing dirty jeans and T-shirts, and then came away saying "That music was terrible! Look at how those musicians dress! So sloppy! No respect!", I submit that many free improv fans would say "That person doesn't understand that music has nothing to do with wardrobe! He is hung up on bourgeois pretensions and superficial appearance!" And then they would go to a Wynton concert and say "That music was terrible! Look at those expensive suits! All pretense and conformism!"

The fact that the audience does look at the musicians, and does speculate (and I emphasize "speculate," because that's all it is) about what their dress implies about their music, puts the lie to the notion that dress has no effect on the music listening experience.

Yes, but it only matters to the musician if the musician is concerned about the effect he and his music are having on the audience.

MG

[tkeith]

There is a specific group of guys (and naming one of them seemed to ruffle some feathers) who, in my estimation, seem to spend as much time worrying about their wardrobe as they do the music. As a consequence, I find their music uninteresting and programmatic.

This sounds very much like you are blaming faults in the music on the musicians' sartorial attitudes. They pay a lot of attention to their wardrobe and "as a consequence" you don't like their music?

You're being argumentative. I said precisely what I mean. There are musicians whose music lacks the spark I seek as a listener. Many of them are the well dressed variety I see on the glossy, highly produced record covers. I'm not suggesting their wardrobe influences my ears, you are. I'm not concerned if you agree, I'm merely stating the way I see it. You're welcome to your own opinion, but don't put words in my mouth.

[AllenLowe]

once again I will reminisce about the lady who was a well-known topless cellist in the 1960s. Yes, those were the good old days..............

[Big Wheel]

The fact that the audience does look at the musicians, and does speculate (and I emphasize "speculate," because that's all it is) about what their dress implies about their music, puts the lie to the notion that dress has no effect on the music listening experience.

That's a strawman. Nobody in this thread ever claimed that there isn't anybody who thinks that how musicians dress is somehow related to how good their music is. All I'm saying is that most listeners are smarter than this, and that there is rarely anything ironic about their behavior when they criticize musicians' sartorial choices.