Strange quote from Chick Corea

[AllenLowe]

I like all those crazy Europeans; have read more Schultz than Walser (there was, btw, a short film about Schultz that came out some years ago, concerned with, as I recall, trying to find his drawings). Gotta check out the Walser that you mention,

[Leeway]

Great artists write the music that is in them, that expresses them, and that they believe is valid and important, and, more so, necessary for them to do. Ditto authors, painters, sculptors and dancers. Most great artists are way ahead of their audience. Chick is not in that category, so it makes commercial sense for him to figure out what is popular and go for it. Apparently, he is covering all bets on his Blue Note gig.

[jazzbo]

Ah, the myth of the great artist.

[fasstrack]

"My opinion, generally, is that all music lacks value and humanity and feeling and depth when it's devoid of an audience. "

same thing, I would say, with executions.

I dunno, Allen. I think maybe he was TRYING to say the bit about a tree falling, etc. I myself would've said what I believe: it's best when live performers communicate and bring people (of whatever) rather than merely being about themselves.

"My opinion, generally, is that all music lacks value and humanity and feeling and depth when it's devoid of an audience. "

same thing, I would say, with executions.

I dunno, Allen. I think maybe he was TRYING to say the bit about a tree falling, etc. I myself would've said what I believe: it's best when live performers communicate and bring people (of whatever) rather than merely being about themselves.

[AllenLowe]

I'm not against having an audience; I just think guys like Corea, relative to that statement, have retreated to what seems to me a fascist position. It basically says that if something has support it must be good.

[cih]

talking of crazy Europeans - Adolf Wölfli - I've never heard his music... but his pictures, now that's depth and feeling right there in his own kind of alienation. The real changes in art haven't come from the public galleries

[JSngry]

I'm not against having an audience; I just think guys like Corea, relative to that statement, have retreated to what seems to me a fascist position. It basically says that if something has support it must be good.

No, it basically says that music is better heard than unheard (I agree) and/or that music made without any real desire to be heard is lacking in some essential human element (not so sure about that one, but it's not totally wrong, imo).

Chick Corea: Yeah, that's part of it. My opinion, generally, is that all music lacks value and humanity and feeling and depth when it's devoid of an audience. I mean, if you think of me sitting in my room playing music just for myself, I mean there's nothing wrong with that, it's a great activity. But in terms of music as a culture and a society, you have to take changes in audiences into account.

There's nothing in that statement that equates the mere presence of an audience with the worth of the music itself. It's talking about the intent of the music, whther it is to be heard by an audience or to strictly satisfy a self-need.

I certainly do believe that the line of "wanting to communicate" goes from the nasty extremes of outright rejecting an audience to all-out whorish pandering, but there's a lot of room in between, much of it worthy of serious consideration and honorable acceptance.

[Mark Stryker]

I'm not against having an audience; I just think guys like Corea, relative to that statement, have retreated to what seems to me a fascist position. It basically says that if something has support it must be good.

I'm not sure he's saying that, actually. He is saying that without an audience (support), music doesn't have a societal or cultural value. I don't think a corollary necessarily follows from this that whatever music has the greatest audience is by definition the best music or that it must be good. I do see a possible slippery slope and the tension between Corea's line of thinking and, say, Monk's famous quote that (I'm paraphrasing from memory) you should play what you want rather than what the public wants and let the public catch up, even it takes 20 years. I'd like to hear Corea go deeper into the topic to tease out the nuances and how he might (or not) reconciles the tensions.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Mark Stryker

[fasstrack]

Leave Adolph and Eva alone already. They had such nice teeth..."Zuh Fuherer zid not say zis 'baby'"...

[cih]

the societal or cultural value of it might be that it offers/forces a new conception - the culture/society might need to change

Edited November 3, 2011 by cih

[JSngry]

I do see the tension in Corea's line of thinking with, say, Monk's famous quote that (I'm paraphrasing from memory) you should play what you want rather than what the public wants and let the public catch up, even it takes 20 years.

Implicit in Monk's statement is the recognition that there will be an audience, and that your music will be heard, and yeah, that's a good thing. So play for the people who will listen, even if they're not here yet.

It's one thing to say follow your muse, there is worth there, people will see it someday and just saying, hey, this is what I want to do, I don't give a rat's ass if anybody ever likes it or not.

The irony in that last statement is that somebody probably sooner or later will like it, so there's your audience that you weren't looking for, there's your "cultural relevance" that you didn't give a damn about, there's you getting the attention you never really cared about.

But - if you really don't care if nobody likes it or not and nobody ever does, then what is the point relative to anybody outside yourself?

That's pretty much rhetorical, though, because damn near anything and everything can find some kind of an audience.

What is a fair question of Corea is this - what motivates you to be so many things so visibly to so many different people? I mean, this is a guy who has spent a lot of his time making "fusion" music of widely varying quality (some of it seminal, some of it...quite unnecessary, imo) who also admitted only a few years ago that he was "just now" discovering The Beatles. Cart before the horse, to put it mildly...

It's all good if the music's good (or mostly good), and Chick's scorecard there over the last 35 years or so is certainly open for debate.

Edited November 3, 2011 by JSngry

[JSngry]

the societal or cultural value of it might be that it offers/forces a new conception - the culture/society might need to change

But that need will be met only if there is some sort of consensus along the same lines as the artist's vision...which mean that the artist will have found an audience.

I pretty much think that anybody who creates in the marketplace and says they don't want to communicate is either crazy or a liar. Or both!

The question is - how much of your ideas do you want to communicate, are you going to be satisfied getting some of your points across to more people, or do you need to make all of your points to whoever will listen. The only real "sellout" is to say that you want to be heard even if you don't get to make any of your points. Everything else is...a decision.

Edited November 3, 2011 by JSngry

[Mark Stryker]

I do see the tension in Corea's line of thinking with, say, Monk's famous quote that (I'm paraphrasing from memory) you should play what you want rather than what the public wants and let the public catch up, even it takes 20 years.

Implicit in Monk's statement is the recognition that there will be an audience, and that your music will be heard, and yeah, that's a good thing. So play for the people who will listen, even if they're not here yet.

It's one thing to say follow your muse, there is worth there, people will see it someday and just saying, hey, this is what I want to do, I don't give a rat's ass if anybody ever likes it or not.

The irony in that last statement is that somebody probably sooner or later will like it, so there's your audience that you weren't looking for, there's your "cultural relevance" that you didn't give a damn about, there's you getting the attention you never really cared about.

But - if you really don't care if nobody likes it or not and nobody ever does, then what is the point relative to anybody outside yourself?

That's pretty much rhetorical, though, because damn near anything and everything can find some kind of an audience.

What is a fair question of Corea is this - what motivates you to be so many things so visibly to so many different people? I mean, this is a guy who has spent a lot of his time making "fusion" music of widely varying quality (some of it seminal, some of it...quite unnecessary, imo) who also admitted only a few years ago that he was "just now" discovering The Beatles. Cart before the horse, to put it mildly...

It's all good if the music's good (or mostly good), and Chick's scorecard there over the last 35 years or so is certainly open for debate.

Agree in many respects. Short on time today so can't elaborate but would quickly point out that at least for me Chick's best music (last 35 years and prior) more than makes up for the stuff I find marginal or worse. In the right setting with the right attitude, he remains a remarkable improviser and bandleader.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Mark Stryker

[JSngry]

Can't say that it "makes up for it" for me, but it does at least keep me open to the possibilities of Chick Corea.

[cih]

The idea that the person at the receiving end of a piece of art or music is unpredictable can take the burden of its consideration away from its creator - the field holler languishing in the Library of Congress, the automatic drawing of the asylum inmate, the death mask of Tutankhamun... all projenitors of influence a long way from their intended audience (if there even was one)

also there are many factors at work in creating - unconscious urges, sublimation, religious fervour etc - above and beyond communication. To suggest these are of lesser importance or less 'deep' is false

Edited November 3, 2011 by cih

[A Lark Ascending]

Ah, the myth of the great artist.

Quite.

I'd say it's inevitably an interaction. Performers grow from the people who surround them; the best also draw something distinctive from within (or from the ricocheting of external influences that creates something new).

Some superb performers have locked themselves away in a bubble and created something wonderful; but I suspect most feed off interaction with an audience (live, on record or whatever). Think of all those composers who premièred a new work, didn't like the reaction and then revised it. There's a dialectic at work.

Allowing the reactions of an audience to influence you is not the same as pandering to that audience.

[ep1str0phy]

the societal or cultural value of it might be that it offers/forces a new conception - the culture/society might need to change

But that need will be met only if there is some sort of consensus along the same lines as the artist's vision...which mean that the artist will have found an audience.

I pretty much think that anybody who creates in the marketplace and says they don't want to communicate is either crazy or a liar. Or both!

The question is - how much of your ideas do you want to communicate, are you going to be satisfied getting some of your points across to more people, or do you need to make all of your points to whoever will listen. The only real "sellout" is to say that you want to be heard even if you don't get to make any of your points. Everything else is...a decision.

Absolutely--and these kinds of creative decisions can be/are often profoundly harrowing, since (as per your statement above) I'd think that most (definitely not all--I've met some extremely obstinate "outsider" artists who would rather play and be left alone than be "in the game") creative people would want to communicate.

There's actually a pretty heady discussion going on among the SF/Bay Area community regarding the (only recent) tangible recognition on the part of an apparent "people's newspaper" of the fact that we have an underground music scene out here--and everyone agrees that at least part of the reason the underground music scene exists is because experimental artists wanted to a place to air their works. Experimentalism/dissonance/anything that might pose a challenge to anyone's listening tastes is not antithetical to the existence of or desire for an audience. Look at what happened to Albert Ayler...

I would personally draw the line at invoking "crassness"--or, more generously, simply catering to what you think the mass audience wants--as a creative impetus. I totally agree that Monk's words may be parsed to mean that he thought an audience was out there, whether it found him sooner or later. The other example is guys like the Art Ensemble--their early music had spectacular, resonant moments (some of my favorite music ever) that nonetheless echoed only underground for some time--my understanding was that it took Europe to make the world realize that the AACM needed their moment. Roscoe's advice to me was always, "Your audience will find you"--and that was 100% correct in his case.

Of course, the notion that there is an audience for anything presupposes the existence of an intrinsic, relatable quality in any given musical expression--and yes, some stuff is just noise, and some music just sucks. But imagine being the Art Ensemble--cats who practiced together from morning to night, days on end--having a shared understanding that your music is something special, or even the minority recognition that guys like Larry or Chuck could offer before breaking big... it is worthwhile to listen to the minority opinion. I'd hate to think that we'd be deprived of the AECO, Ornette, or even Bird, Monk, etc. due to weak nerves or a desire for quick returns. Or, paraphrasing a (dubious) Wayne Gretzky quote that Steve Jobs bandied about (sorry, I'm reading this article right now), sometimes it is worthwhile to aim for where the puck is going to be.

On the other hand, history has been saddled with tons of crappy music essayed by folks attempting to catch up to existing trends--my first thought was Jackie McLean's Monuments--something that isn't absolutely devoid of artistic content but an artistic compromise nonetheless. I'd rather have a handful of folks on a jazz board geek out on something as profound as One Step Beyond than have no one so much as remember that I made Monuments under the pretense that it would shake some asses. In other words, I don't think that crassness has to do with the end result of the music so much as it has to do with intentions and timeliness.

Edited November 3, 2011 by ep1str0phy

[JSngry]

I tend to not mind crassness nearly as much as I do cynicism. I can have fun (as both player & end-user) with crass. Not so much with cynical.

[ep1str0phy]

Actually, I think I agree with you--I think it's when the crassness is cyncial that things get ugly. This is going to sound terrible, but I suppose that albums like Duke Ellington & John Coltrane or Ballads are somewhat crass, too, but I would never want to be deprived of that music--I think that Coltrane was playing "mellower" in a very genuine way.

And, for what it's worth, I don't think Chick was necessarily being cynical when he made the shift to more commercial music--my understanding is that it was a direct outgrowth of the way in which he responded to Scientology. Judging from the pretty candid statements in Forces In Motion, Chick seemed more or less enthusiastic about going the "let's make some money" route (crass but not necessarily disdainful of others/the music). This is not the best place for gross condemnations of belief systems (of any sort), so let it be said that a lot of Chick's market considerations were informed by psychology--and he's probably at peace with this.

The wacky thing is that, judging by the statements above, the guy who played the spectacular piano solo on Afternoon of a Georgia Faun--the piano player in Circle, the Lost Quintet--is still in there somewhere. I mean, I'd like to think the Marion Brown-espousing contingent is a market consideration to (i.e., if Chick were to head back into the studio and play some super out shit--or randomly reunite with the other 3/4 of Circle--I'd want to listen).

[JSngry]

Crass is playing like you want to get laid even when you don't because it feels good anyway, and besides, it might help somebody else.

Cynical is playing like you want to get laid even when you don't because you think it will get you laid anyway.

Jaded is when it works often enough that you can't tell the difference.

Lost is when you finally do realize the difference but don't care anymore.

Gone is when you try to care but can't.

It's probably best to not let the crass thing get out of hand.

[clifford_thornton]

I have enjoyed enough of Corea's music to say that generally, the cheesy record covers and past its prime fusion aside, I like him. Vitous & Haynes, Circle, some of the solo stuff, early RTF, etc. is all quite good to totally killer.

[JSngry]

It still cracks me up that he was as recently as just a few years ago just discovering The Beatles. The more wonky elements of all the fusion RTF (and there were many, even on the good stuff) might have had significantly less wonkiness if he would have known that you can still rock out and have a great melody. I mean, the guy's been a freakin' Melody Monster over the years, but his electric stuff tends to not "sing" as much as it does flail (not always helplessly, though...).

I don't get it. You yourself can write great melodies, you want to reach a broader audience, you chose to do so through electric music, and you don't even bother to check out The Beatles until 35 or 40 years after they freakin' break up?

How does that work, anyway? I just don't get it. To me, that's a strange quote from Chick Corea, or would be if I could find it...

[JSngry]

Ok, this is not the one I read, but here's a variant of it, from earlier this year: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2011/03/chick-corea-gets-a-little-beatlemania.html

Though jazz musicians started covering Lennon and McCartney’s songbook before the Beatles released “Revolver,” Corea didn’t take much notice of the Fab Four fuss. “During that time I was so thoroughly immersed in Miles, Coltrane and Bill Evans,” Corea says. “Gary was deeply into the Beatles back then. I heard about them and all of the hoopla, but I had zero interest, and I didn’t follow what they were doing, for better or worse.”

It wasn’t Burton, however, who turned Corea onto the Beatles. He experienced his delayed epiphany courtesy of banjo star Bela Fleck. While touring together a few years ago, Corea noticed his longtime sound engineer Bernie Kirsh and Fleck intently dissecting a Beatles tune. Feeling left out of the discussion, he asked Fleck to fill him in. Over the course of a long drive to the next gig, Fleck gave Corea a guided tour through the Beatles catalog he keeps stored on his hard drive. “That got me really excited,” Corea says. “I read a biography of the band and bought the ‘Anthology’ DVD set.”

Ok, not checking them out at the time because of other, more urgent priorities, that I can definitely understand. But once you choose to enter somewhat the same arena, don't you get just a little curious sooner than later?

That's just weird...

[jazzbo]

I THINK it's quite possible that Chick didn't think he WAS in the same arena. That there was a different audience and market for his work, and he probably also believed that he had the right mojo and just needed to apply it. He came out of a cauldron of souljazz and avant-garde jazz and whatever you want to call what Miles was doing and he thought: I've got it, I've got the goods, the magic, and I just need to do my thing with gravitas.

[JSngry]

Gravitas is one thing, but...

That's just a looooooonnnnngggggg time to go without even being curious...or even thinking about being curious.

I can't think that Stanley Clarke hadn't checked out The Beatles and it never once came up in conversation. Or even Lenny White. Or Hubert Laws. Or Bobby McFerrin. Or Chakka Kahn. Or John Pattitucci. Or Steve Gadd. The list goes on. How do you not even once get a crack of light into that until just a few years ago? I suppose it can happen, but...how?

And the thing about him & his wife had known George Martin for years and never ever connected him with The Beatles....like, ok, he doesn't mention it himself, but surely somebody somewhere brought it up...

It just seems weird for somebody in that realm to have remained that ignorant (as in not knowing, not as in not liking or whatever) for that long. Just plain weird.