Musicians dress

[JohnS]

I've heard it remarked at our local jazz club that the casual dress - some would say untidy or even scruffy - of some of the musicians who play for us is unprofessional.

I started going to live music many years ago when suits were almost obligatory. In the 60s/70s I didn't particularly care for the trend towards more casual dress but now I no longer notice it or care about it particularly. I'm just happy to meet the musicians and hear some good music. (I was more offended at a recent gig when the alto player spent all his time chatting at the bar when not playing).

Opinions welcomed.

[Niko]

i like it when bands look good on stage... nothing that would turn a great concert into a bad one or vice-versa but still... they can wear whatever they want but i really appreciate when there is some coordination (or at least, a good overall picture); found it funny to notice that even robert smith of The Cure can't apparently say more than "we're a band that wears black" to his bandmates, having e.g. a drummer who always comes with a black t-shirt which makes him look more like a fusion guy (his hair has to do with it , too)... felt really sorry for my former saxophone teacher, he apparently talked about these things with the trumpeter, they tried to to look a bit "sharp" (no suits and ties but italian looking jackets) but they had no way of keeping ugly sweaters out of the rhythm section...

enough of this...

Edited October 20, 2009 by Niko

[Big Beat Steve]

Hasn't that been a trend that's been evolving for MANY decades?

They just don't come as sharp as in their 40s or 50s stage attire or even band uniforms'n all any more.

But of course, assuming a vast majority or those who perform live today are just "pick-up" ensembles and not working bands that have been playing together for a long time it's easy to see why they should not feel compelled - as a very minimum - to wear, say, shirts and trousers of the same colors to provide a visual sense of unity and enhance stage presence.

From all I've seen either live or on TV concert airings, I agree with you about the sometimes scruffy aspect. T-shirts and raggedy jeans are quite OK for 20+ year old rock etc. musicians but on some middle-aged to decidedly aged persons those slobbery T-shirts or sweatshirts with contrivedly youngish imprints on them (and bulging over long-acquired beer bellies) combined with trousers looking like they've been pulled out of last week's charity drive do not look all that impressive. And shoes removed for comfort are a bit bizarre when witnessed live on stage too. Not everyone can make light-hearted fun of habits like this the way Little Willie Littlefield could.

There are moments when you really wish you'd catch that live broadcast on radio and not on TV.

But again, that's a trend that seems to have been evolving for a long, long time so I am not particularly surprised and don't really care that much. It's just the way it is but it's a pity sometimes.

[sonnymax]

I agree that there's a trend, but it's much bigger than the jazz scene or performers for that matter. In the last 20 years or so, I've noticed that audiences also dress in more casual attire, and sometimes are downright sloppy. And I'm not referring to poor college students in basement jazz clubs. I'm talking about adults attending theater productions and the opera. Looking for ties and jackets? Forget it if they're under 60 or 70. You're more likely to see sweaters, jeans, sneakers, work boots - even t-shirts and baseball caps! Truly, we are the ugly Americans.

[Hot Ptah]

I have a slightly different perspective on this. In the 1970s, I noticed that many of the most creative musicians did not wear suits and ties onstage. In fact, most didn't. They did not wear sloppy clothes, but they did not go in for formal attire. I can picture musicians from Dizzy Gillespie to McCoy Tyner to Air to James Newton to George Lewis to Stan Getz to Dexter Gordon to Elvin Jones to Cecil Taylor--no one wore suits. In fact, just thinking of the 1978 Ann Arbor Jazz Festival, which was an extended array of great artists in a variety of styles, I realize that none of them wore suits and ties.

Then in the early 1980s, Wynton Marsalis and his group began to always wear suits and ties. It became a hallmark of the young lions movement of the 1980s. The young musicians may have been less than fully formed artistically, they may have been presenting half-baked renditions of what sounded like old Lee Morgan albums without Lee, but by God!!! they had their suits and ties on!!! They were Respectable, and insisted on our respect, whether earned musically or not.

I would much rather hear the creativity that I heard live in 1978 by a broad spectrum of artists, than look at suits and ties worn by dull musicians who wouldn't know a creative idea if it bit them on their elegantly attired posterior.

[AllenLowe]

it depends - I remember going in the late 1970s to see Joe Albany; most of the band was casual/neat, but the bass player (great musician, can't remember his name) showed up looking quite slobby. I thought this was extremely inconsiderate since it was someone else's gig.

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

[paul secor]

Doesn't bother me either way. I want musicians to dress in a way that they feel comfortable while creating their music.

Some people look more "dressed" wearing casual clothes than others do wearing more formal clothes. And as H.P. noted about the "young lions" (they're middle aged now), wearing a suit doesn't mean a thing as far as creativity goes.

[fasstrack]

If you really feel you want to dress casual that's OK, I guess. But if all you are is a fashion statement......

I always try to dress nicely, even if I'm just sitting in. It just shows respect for what you're doing, that you take it seriously. And it's cheap. I go to thrift shops and it looks fine. I tell bands to dress, too, if I'm the leader. They don't always listen, though...............

Excessive looseness of discipline can lead to bandstand 'tudes'----which can lead to......................

[AllenLowe]

I just thought that if you're a sideman it behooves you to check with the leader about dress - they bass player I mentioned (and this was at the old West End Cafe) was just so apart from the group that I felt he was out of line (funny I can't remember his name but he was pretty well known in NYC at the time - John something maybe, as I recall he worked with Getz) -

[marcello]

I saw Divid Sanchez in August at Iridium and although Sanchez was dressed casual, but nice and clean, his sidemen looked especially grubby. Even their haircuts made them look like derelicts!

That's a little strange since David Sanchez has a deal with Banana Republic.

[Tom Storer]

It doesn't affect my appreciation of the music, and I don't care if musicians aren't dressed to kill or all with a similar look, but I do appreciate it if it looks as if they are trying to look presentable. The other night I saw a quintet featuring Walter Smith III, tenor sax; Ambrose Akinmusire, trumpet; Gerald Clayton, piano; Harish Raghavan, bass; and Justin Brown, drums. They each had their own look, some funkier than others, some less casual, but none of them looked like they just didn't give a damn what they happened to be wearing.

Then they called Steve Coleman out of the audience to come up and jam. Now Steve Coleman can't be accused of not caring what he wears, for he's had the same look forever: jeans, T-shirt or hooded sweatshirt, backwards baseball cap. But compared to the others he didn't look good. It's like, "This is my uniform: anonymous schlub. I will never, ever try to demonstrate any imagination or style in my dress." Who cares, really, but it's kind of a shame. I feel much the same way about Pat Metheny, who for decades wore jeans and T-shirts and had exactly the same haircut. I think he finally changed a little, though.

[Hot Ptah]

I just thought of an incident involving dress. On the first night of the 1978 Ann Arbor Jazz Festival, Mary Lou Williams opened with Ronnie Boykins, followed by the Max Roach Quartet and Stan Getz and his group. No one wore a suit and tie, although all were presentable. Then the long evening ended with Archie Shepp coming out to play duets with Max Roach.

Archie Shepp came onstage in a dark pinstripe suit and tie, and it was a startling look in comparison to what we had been seeing all evening. He immediately began to play some very intense "out" stuff. It was an entrance with a lot of impact.

So at one time, wearing a suit and tie was a way to mark yourself as someone quite different at a jazz concert.

[AllenLowe]

Ronnie Boykins and Mary Lou Williams? Wow - a duo like that that could wear whatever they want. OK by me -

Edited October 21, 2009 by AllenLowe

[Teasing the Korean]

It's interesting that clothing is arguably the only form of design that has not gone through a post-modern phase, at least in terms of public acceptance.

[kh1958]

Ronnie Boykins and Mary Lou Williams? Wow - a duo like that that could wear whatever they want. OK by me -

A Grand Night for Swinging (High Note), Roy Haynes on drums.

[tkeith]

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.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Yes, it is a show.

MG

[paul secor]

There are times when I like to listen to music (live and recorded) with my eyes closed. I feel I hear the music more clearly and purely that way. At live performances, visuals can sometimes add something to the experience, but many times can distract one's attention from the sound of the music - at least imo.

[tkeith]

Yes, it is a show.

MG

Then I submit it is not Jazz. Or rather, if Jazz has become a "show" then I don't want to play it.

[papsrus]

Different things work in different contexts.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Yes, it is a show.

MG

Then I submit it is not Jazz. Or rather, if Jazz has become a "show" then I don't want to play it.

Jazz always was a show. Surely you can't believe that Armstrong, Ellington, Waller, Basie, Hampton, Goodman and so on and so on didn't know that they were putting on a show to entertain the public?

Entertainment <> mindless entertainment.

MG

[tkeith]

Yes, it is a show.

MG

Then I submit it is not Jazz. Or rather, if Jazz has become a "show" then I don't want to play it.

Jazz always was a show. Surely you can't believe that Armstrong, Ellington, Waller, Basie, Hampton, Goodman and so on and so on didn't know that they were putting on a show to entertain the public?

Entertainment <> mindless entertainment.

MG

Sure, I'll by that. But if you're telling me that Coltrane was a show, I'm not going to agree. I've seen enough live music (Jazz and otherwise) to draw a distinction. David Lee Roth and Kiss were definitely shows. Air, Billy Bang, Billy Harper and Clifford Jordan definitely were not. Harper definitely dresses for the occasion, but that certainly doesn't relegate the music to "entertainment."

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Yes, it is a show.

MG

Then I submit it is not Jazz. Or rather, if Jazz has become a "show" then I don't want to play it.

Jazz always was a show. Surely you can't believe that Armstrong, Ellington, Waller, Basie, Hampton, Goodman and so on and so on didn't know that they were putting on a show to entertain the public?

Entertainment <> mindless entertainment.

MG

Sure, I'll by that. But if you're telling me that Coltrane was a show, I'm not going to agree. I've seen enough live music (Jazz and otherwise) to draw a distinction. David Lee Roth and Kiss were definitely shows. Air, Billy Bang, Billy Harper and Clifford Jordan definitely were not. Harper definitely dresses for the occasion, but that certainly doesn't relegate the music to "entertainment."

Of course, I don't see that it's possible to relegate music to entertainment - though it's possible to relegate music to mindless entertainment.

I haven't seen any of the jazz musicians you mention, but I've heard Harper and Jordan. It's clear to me that their music is directed at getting through to their audiences and I'll take on trust that the same's true for Air and Bang. So it's entertainment. It may also be other things as well: art; politics; the accompaniment to courtship ritual etc. But it's always directed towards the benefit of the audience and therefore has to engage their interest/participation in a number of ways simultaneously, otherwise the music can't get through to do its work. (Hm, and the musicians don't get paid.)

Wearing appropriate clothes to suit the needs of the audience is part of that. That doesn't necessarily mean suits. Sun Ra knew that

MG

[tkeith]

Fair enough, but we differ on one major point. I think Henry Threadgill would write his music if he were playing it to a tree -- the audience is irrelevant. To me, that attitude sets the dividing point of entertainment. I once finished a very intense solo which had grown into more of a collective improv with our trombonist complimenting what I was playing. He quickly picked up where I'd went off, headed in a very soulful/cerebral direction. He was in borderline pain and sweating profusely -- it was a beautiful musical moment. I typically kneel when another player is soloing, so I was in my crouch, re-establishing my bearings, and sweating pretty good myself. I looked at the bassist, who was in a similar Garrison-esque state, then behind me at the drummer, who had his head cocked to the side, listening as he complimented what was going on. I turned toward the audience (this was in a pub) to see their reaction, only to find that we were playing to an empty room as the bartender read her newspaper. There was no conscious effort to be entertaining, but it was definitely a creative high point for the band. I'll reiterate my assertion that music is not inherently 'entertainment'.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Thanks, Thom.

MG