Jazz Populism?

[Teasing the Korean]

I think there's a big difference between not having an audience when you're on the vanguard of a major cultural/sociological/artistic movement and not having an audience when you're at the tail end of a dying one.

[fasstrack]

Thanks, gents, for a thoughtful and cogent discussion, as I expected. I'm already chewing over what everyone has written and on a personal note special thanks to Hot Ptah for validating many things I feel and giving me hope.

FWIW I heard back from the journalist I alluded to initially. He felt jazz's chances of regaining popularity were dim, owing not to musicians' attitudes or playing but (as Alec Wilder also strongly lamented)the fact that the onset of rock and roll's popularity brought with it a 'cult of amateurism' that lowered the standard of songwriting particularly to the point where no self-respecting jazz player or composer could find any use for the songs to improvise, recompose, etc. on---as Ellington, Monk, and others did with Porter, Gershwin, etc. My own feeling as player-composer and lately songwriter who cut his teeth on Woodstock (not the movie, I was there) is that there was and is indeed amateurism in much of pop writing and playing, but also a lot more good than he seemed willing to look for.

I myself will be delighted to play Stevie Wonder's ballads or Donnie Hathaway's and other various tunes of my youth that helped formed my musical core, as did Charlie Christian and others---right along with jazz fare, American Song Book, or more challenging and unpopular fare as they may appeal to me. But one thing that is a definite turn-off since I've rubbed shoulders with the pop world more since undertaking songwriting is an appalling lack of bandstand standards. Competence is regularly thrown overboard in favor of an everyman party-animal everybody join in mentality that would never fly in the jazz world. If you can't play your ass gets kicked off the bandstand, end of story. Maybe this is all obvious, but I guess maybe 'populism' in jazz and pop are two different things. Pete Seeger is one of my heros for a variety of reasons and I admire that he wants to get people to sing together---but, hell, not on my gig. But, as I told this guy, nothing's all good or bad (also obvious) and even the golden era of the ASB had its share of crap moon-june songs (Smile, Darn Ya Smile, anyone?). Also give me Johnny Cash telling a story over some poor jazzer. It's how you do it as much as what you do. And in the end, as just about everyone here has noted, the music is all that matters. What it means to others is on the others, though what I said re attitudes stands. Musicians play, first and last.

[Alexander]

Speaking as a performing improviser and comedian: You can do whatever you like, but if it doesn't delight the audience, you won't do it for long...

[JSngry]

And in the end, as just about everyone here has noted, the music is all that matters.

So what's the problem with Paul Bley's "fuck the audience" attitude, then?

[Larry Kart]

He didn't get fired, did he?

Well, he tries very hard to escape to greener pastures in Dresden, where he would have been a court composer under royal patronage, but that doesn't come off. The conflict with the Leipzig city council, his bosses as cantor of St. Thomas Church, doesn't let up one bit insofar as we can tell, though it apparently keeps branching out into new forms and issues of dispute. Then Bach in a kind of knight's move also becomes director of the flexible/fluid instrumental ensemble the Collegium Musicum, which gives him a bit more room to maneuver. (One of Bach's fallback cards in this mess is that he was acknowledged to be perhaps the best organist in captivity, and that meant best in terms of both virtuosity and ability to improvise -- this at a time and place when hotshot improvising church organists had the broad social cachet of, say, hotshot rock guitarists in the 1960s-'70s.)

In any case, it was never a picnic for Bach. To quote again from Geck, "The Bach of the last phase is no old man gathering his strength to bring in a last harvest. He is, however, increasingly weary of his post as cantor of St. Thomas's, and would perhaps have already resigned if such a step were feasible or customary in those days...."

[JSngry]

So he kept a gig rather than be without one, and he found ways to not get fired even though some people wanted to fire him?

This guy wasn't just a genius, he knew how to work the room, at least the one that cut him his check (such as it was...).

Talent isn't just a gift, it's also a bargaining chip. In the right hands, of course. But a bargaining chip isn't any good unless you know how to bargain, and you can't bargain successfully without knowing your audience.

[Larry Kart]

This guy wasn't just a genius, he knew how to work the room...

Father of twenty-six children, Bach knew how to work more than one room.

[JSngry]

Got to keep the customer satisfied...

[Teasing the Korean]

I think there's a big difference between not having an audience when you're on the vanguard of a major cultural/sociological/artistic movement and not having an audience when you're at the tail end of a dying one.

[fasstrack]

And in the end, as just about everyone here has noted, the music is all that matters.

So what's the problem with Paul Bley's "fuck the audience" attitude, then?

It's that if people get turned off by comments like that they in turn might just turn off the commenter and consequently the music. And we can't afford to lose any of the paltry 3% CD market share we have or any audience generally. And while I agree with the comment my scribe friend made that Bley made the statement b/c he works mostly in Europe where it's supposedly accepted that you on the bandstand are more important than anything or anybody else, I still dpn't excuse it. I don't live in Europe, though I have and did see a different kind of interaction. I'm worried about the damage done by remarks like that in kicking what's already down back here. Everyone involved that has any kind of fame should realize that their utterances are going to be magnified and it's probably a good idea to think more about the effect of one's remarks before opening that pie-hole.

[JSngry]

Still, if the music is all that matters..."all" doesn't leave room for anything else, does it, even an audience who presumably will like what it is given or else...fuck 'em?

I'm totally okay with that attitude if it's consistently applied. But don't blow off the audience one night and then the next afternoon wonder how to get a bigger audience.

[fasstrack]

Still, if the music is all that matters..."all" doesn't leave room for anything else, does it, even an audience who presumably will like what it is given or else...fuck 'em?

I'm totally okay with that attitude if it's consistently applied. But don't blow off the audience one night and then the next afternoon wonder how to get a bigger audience.

Playing and talking are two different things. And they both have their effects on the listener. You shouldn't think about the effect when you play, it'll just drive you crazy, distract you and hurt the music, and the chips will fall where they may anyway. You should think about the effect of your words.

[JSngry]

So you don't think of playing as saying something? Notes as words, sentences?

And if you shouldn't think about the effect your notes will have on the listener, how is that not essentially saying "fuck the audience", only with notes instead of words? Either way, I think a lot of people can tell when they're being told to get fucked.

[fasstrack]

So you don't think of playing as saying something? Notes as words, sentences?

And if you shouldn't think about the effect your notes will have on the listener, how is that not essentially saying "fuck the audience", only with notes instead of words? Either way, I think a lot of people can tell when they're being told to get fucked.

Of course I do, just in a different language. I said don't think about the effects when playing, b/c it can distract. But, thinking about it, the energy coming back can also inspire. I don't know, like everybody else I myself am a work in progress. I try to focus on the music only in performance, and shut out 'white noise' like my own self-criticism or vibes I might think I'm getting from someone on the stand or in the audience that aren't the greatest. But in so doing I might miss something coming back that will make me feel good and play better. It's weird how the hypersensitivity that makes you a creative type can also do in said creativity if you let it.

Edited April 5, 2011 by fasstrack

[GA Russell]

What, sans 'water', can folks like us do to make this music inclusive, reflective of life's larger picture, and---yes---beloved again?

I think the OP is a legitimate question. Nowadays, not only are the majors not recording jazz, but there aren't that many minor jazz labels either. It seems like a lot of musicians are issuing their own records.

I would rephrase the question, "What can those of us who play improvisational music do to make it more popular?"

I would first ask myself, Who are the potential audience that matters?

1) Well, I think improvisational music is sophisticated, so I would go after sophisticated people. When I say sophisticated, I don't mean stuffy. I mean folks who take quality seriously.

2) Are we talking about getting paid for the gig? If so, what are people willing to pay for? I would say that most people pay for a good time. So I would ask myself, Is my music anybody's idea of a good time?

I suggested earlier that jazz needs more songs with good melodies. I think that most people like good melodies. In fact, I would be surprised if I played music without good melodies and many people liked it anyway.

Many people also like to dance. This suggests to me that songs with good rhythms will sell tickets. As Count Basie said, pat your foot music. Swing.

People enjoy performers who are apparently enjoying themselves. This suggests to me that the musicians should show a little personality, and show the audience that they are glad to be there, and that they are damn glad that the audience paid money for tickets to come watch and listen.

3) If you want to be liked by the audience, you have to like them first. Speak to them. Be likeable. That's Wynton's biggest asset.

4) Finally, to return to the point about having a good time, if you want the paying audience to be happy, play some happy music every once in a while! Herbie Mann and Roland Kirk were great at that.

[.:.impossible]

Good grief.

[JSngry]

So you don't think of playing as saying something? Notes as words, sentences?

And if you shouldn't think about the effect your notes will have on the listener, how is that not essentially saying "fuck the audience", only with notes instead of words? Either way, I think a lot of people can tell when they're being told to get fucked.

Of course I do, just in a different language. I said don't think about the effects when playing, b/c it can distract. But, thinking about it, the energy coming back can also inspire. I don't know, like everybody else I myself am a work in progress. I try to focus on the music only in performance, and shut out 'white noise' like my own self-criticism or vibes I might think I'm getting from someone on the stand or in the audience that aren't the greatest. But in so doing I might miss something coming back that will make me feel good and play better. It's weird how the hypersensitivity that makes you a creative type can also do in said creativity if you let it.

I don't know that you should shut out anything while you're playing, not if the goal is to play freely. The more you shut out, the more you risk playing by rote. And I don't know that audiences always enjoy that so much.

Of course, you then run the risk of letting bad stuff interfere, but the trick there is to let it in w/o engaging it. Otherwise you're expending energy on blocking, and that too is a distraction. Can't really fault an audience for being distracted when the players are distracted too.

[fasstrack]

So you don't think of playing as saying something? Notes as words, sentences?

And if you shouldn't think about the effect your notes will have on the listener, how is that not essentially saying "fuck the audience", only with notes instead of words? Either way, I think a lot of people can tell when they're being told to get fucked.

Of course I do, just in a different language. I said don't think about the effects when playing, b/c it can distract. But, thinking about it, the energy coming back can also inspire. I don't know, like everybody else I myself am a work in progress. I try to focus on the music only in performance, and shut out 'white noise' like my own self-criticism or vibes I might think I'm getting from someone on the stand or in the audience that aren't the greatest. But in so doing I might miss something coming back that will make me feel good and play better. It's weird how the hypersensitivity that makes you a creative type can also do in said creativity if you let it.

I don't know that you should shut out anything while you're playing, not if the goal is to play freely. The more you shut out, the more you risk playing by rote. And I don't know that audiences always enjoy that so much.

Of course, you then run the risk of letting bad stuff interfere, but the trick there is to let it in w/o engaging it. Otherwise you're expending energy on blocking, and that too is a distraction. Can't really fault an audience for being distracted when the players are distracted too.

You won't play by rote if you're listening. Dialog w/the band to feed off each other. If I play a solo gig I'm the band so I have to sort of trade with myself. That's easy to do on guitar if you're playing long enough. It's a small orchestra. If it gets lonely up there then I can get into patter, or a tap dance . I may engage them to let them know I'm listening to them, but it won't affect what I play. Maybe if they piss me off by being loud or stupid I'll play a B list tune just for spite. Nah, I won't either. Hey, how's that for self-involved commentary? And now for penance: OOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM.......

[JSngry]

You will play by rote if all you're listening to is yourself and all that you already know. Same for playing with a group, as long as all they're listening to is each other and everything they already know, they too will play by rote. It may be a very high caliber rote, but it's still pretty much comes down to retaking a test after you've passed it. Been thre, done that, not really sure how/when/if/why to pick back up afterward either...

If players are just playing what they all already know, in a narrow or a broad sense, individually or as a group, all they're really asking out of an audience is to come, sit down, and watch us test our reflexes to see how nimbly we can play by rote. Performance then becomes a spectator sport where the audience is asked to appreciate how well the musicians have learned their craft. "Clever boys and girls!" would be the ultimate compliment.

Would you leave the house for that? In this economy?

[Peter Friedman]

I approach this from the other side. I am not a musician, but a person who has been a highly serious music listener for more than 50 years. In those many years I have come to recognize that after spending time with a reasonably large variety of music, some has stuck to me, and other music has little if any interest to me.

Within the realm of what we call jazz I prefer my music to usually be within the song form or blues form, to have some degree of melody, and in the fast majority of instances to swing.

Since this whole discussion began with reference to Lee Konitz, my personal view is that I very much liked most of what I heard from Konitz up to a certain point in time where his playing

very often was lacking in those preferred characteristics I identified above. I spent a fair amount of time doing a lot of listening to Free Jazz because it was something (at that time) new and

having an impact. After a while I came to the realization that it was not music I cared about very much. There are only so many hours each day, week or year to be spent listening to

jazz music. I found it far far more personally satisfying to use my listening time with the likes of Louis,Pee Wee, Roy, Benny Carter, Bean, Pres, Bird,Bud, Monk, Rollins, Dexter, Getz, Cedar,

Barry Harris, etc.

To turn Paul Bley's terse statement upside down - My (tongue in cheek) comment to jazz musicians who don't play music that has the qualities I find most appealing - Fuck 'em!

[JSngry]

Really, it's 2011, not 1961. The music as it has existed is now and will forevermore be a fringe music. Find where the fringe that fits your particular genre lives and give them what they want.

But in answer to your question, I would say simply "more melody".

We're on the same page there, buddy, and thanks for that. Melody is what I live for.

I approach this from the other side. I am not a musician, but a person who has been a highly serious music listener for more than 50 years. In those many years I have come to recognize that after spending time with a reasonably large variety of music, some has stuck to me, and other music has little if any interest to me.

Within the realm of what we call jazz I prefer my music to usually be within the song form or blues form, to have some degree of melody, and in the fast majority of instances to swing.

Since this whole discussion began with reference to Lee Konitz, my personal view is that I very much liked most of what I heard from Konitz up to a certain point in time where his playing

very often was lacking in those preferred characteristics I identified above. I spent a fair amount of time doing a lot of listening to Free Jazz because it was something (at that time) new and

having an impact. After a while I came to the realization that it was not music I cared about very much. There are only so many hours each day, week or year to be spent listening to

jazz music. I found it far far more personally satisfying to use my listening time with the likes of Louis,Pee Wee, Roy, Benny Carter, Bean, Pres, Bird,Bud, Monk, Rollins, Dexter, Getz, Cedar,

Barry Harris, etc.

To turn Paul Bley's terse statement upside down - My (tongue in cheek) comment to jazz musicians who don't play music that has the qualities I find most appealing - Fuck 'em!

There you go, Joel, there's you niche/fringe/whatever. Now go find them & give them what they want. Make sure it gets to them, not some random people out there in the world (of which there are many!) Get popular with them, and most importantly, stay popular with them!

Problem solved, I do believe.

[A Lark Ascending]

I disagree - nobody required Beckett to explain Beckett, or Joyce to explain Joyce. Cecil Taylor has no such obligation, On the other hand, there are tons of interviews with Braxton, et al. You just have to look for it,

No obligation whatsoever. And I'm not talking about explaining everything away - part of the fun is the mystery and ambiguity.

But if a musician is going to make music that is obtuse and have no consideration for an audience, then expect to remain on the margins. Just don't bleat about not being understood or blame the audience for not trying hard enough or having low expectations. Most audiences want to be moved, engaged, sometimes challenged - they don't want to be presented with a mathematical puzzle without even the first indication of how to decode it.

If the musician has chosen the difficult path, it's up to him or her to convince the audience that it's a path worth following. Alternatively, they can simply follow their own path and just wait for the audience to catch up. This seemed to happen in classical music up to the early 20thC. The story from serialism onwards should be a warning though - the wider audience has still not caught up. Much mid to late-20thC music remains the preserve of the academic. I'd suggest the reason for that is that despite all its musical and philosophical merits it fails to address the most important expectation that a wider audience has of music - to be emotionally moved (something such music seemed to quite deliberately reject).

Edited April 5, 2011 by A Lark Ascending

[fasstrack]

You will play by rote if all you're listening to is yourself and all that you already know. Same for playing with a group, as long as all they're listening to is each other and everything they already know, they too will play by rote. It may be a very high caliber rote, but it's still pretty much comes down to retaking a test after you've passed it. Been thre, done that, not really sure how/when/if/why to pick back up afterward either...

If players are just playing what they all already know, in a narrow or a broad sense, individually or as a group, all they're really asking out of an audience is to come, sit down, and watch us test our reflexes to see how nimbly we can play by rote. Performance then becomes a spectator sport where the audience is asked to appreciate how well the musicians have learned their craft. "Clever boys and girls!" would be the ultimate compliment.

Would you leave the house for that? In this economy?

You sound like Lee now in the book. Are you sure you guys don't have the same writer?

Seriously, that is his philosophy, and the book is a provocative read. Sure as hell got a rise out of me---and that beats the alternative.

There you go, Joel, there's you niche/fringe/whatever. Now go find them & give them what they want. Make sure it gets to them, not some random people out there in the world (of which there are many!) Get popular with them, and most importantly, stay popular with them!

Problem solved, I do believe.

No, it ain't either, and I do believe you're yanking me. You...jokester, you.

[JSngry]

Two separate issues, perhaps, although they ultimately interact...but the first is about the "artistic quality" of what gets played. The second is about how do you get whatever it is you play to enough of an audience to be "popular".

The first is ultimately a private matter, but the second...hell dude, it's just basic business. Let's break it down:

• Jazz as it has been played in the past will never again be a music of mass popularity
• You have a natural affinity for playing jazz as it has been played in the past (not a value judgment, I assure you)
• There will always be an audience for jazz as it has been played in the past
• You would like to be favorably accepted by that audience (i.e. - be "popular", not necessarily you personally, just your music)
• We have identified at least two people who have expressed an enjoyment of the type of jazz that you play
• See if you can get what you do to them
• Lather, rinse, repeat Find them, one by one, and give (ok, sell, whatever) them you doing what it is they want to hear
• Set obtainable goals, have realistic expectation, and know that, besides an audience of two being more than an audience of 0, there are people all over the world share an interest in the type of jazz you play. There is only a finite-sized market for this stuff any more, and it ain't exactly "sizable". So you ain't never gonna have platinum-level sales, unless something freaky happens like a movie placement deal or some such (but even then, the more you get heard...).
• Do the work, reap the results, be thankful, and take nothing for granted.

That, sir, is the only way to get this music "popular again" - to find the people who want it (in whatever form), make sure that they get it, and keep giving/getting it to them in such a way that they'll continue to want it. If it sounds like more trouble than it's worth, then it probably is. But that will be your decision, not the audience's. Proceed accordingly.

That ain't no joke.

[ep1str0phy]

I'm really amazed at the lucidity of your statements, Jim--in part because you're not worried to think small--(which is a thing) both intensely pragmatic and very professional.

The hardest part is figuring out how to communicate the existence of what it is that you do to the audience that exists for it. Then there's Roscoe Mitchell's advice, which is (and I paraphrase) "Work on your music, and eventually your audience will find you." I'm don't think that this is a passive thing--it entails, obviously, work--and at least some of that has to do with performing the bare minimum of self-exposure and press--and so it's similar in "spirit" to what Jim has been saying.

"Waiting" can be a pain in the ass, and maybe "it" never comes. At the same time, you're not going to win anyone over by convincing he/she that their predilections have been wrong, heretofore.

The other cryptic/genius thing I've heard Roscoe say is "work on music." Insofar as this entails letting go of sticking to idiomatic conceits (easy) or engendering/displaying an interest in music that isn't jazz--even if you do play jazz (potentially hard)--it's workable advice. I've seen the largest personal returns (and I've seen many other jazz guys obtain sizable personal returns) by disabusing myself of the problem of convincing people that what I'm doing is awesome and concentrating on dealing with what it is that I do. The fact that a large proportion of my audience isn't comprised of jazz people is ultimately incidental to the fact that I'm happy doing what it is that I'm doing.