|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.249.98.28
A rhetorical question that came to me after reading the attached article, so I thought I'd throw it out here for comments. The attached pertains to the San Francisco scene, but can be extended.
As a whole, I think its a music form headed to the back burner, if not already there. People have long said similar things about rock and roll, using Beyonce', hip-rap, and other examples, but all that might be evolution -- not extinction.
There have been many attempts over the decades to meld jazz with other popular forms to make it more profitable. All I know is that I don't perceive much new activity on the jazz fronts.
Any observations? Any other parts of the world experiencing better jazz reception?
Anyway, its a good article.
Follow Ups:
It's alive and well at the Bird and Beckett book store on Chenery ST. SF. every weekend. Lots of great talent and the acoustics are great. I would consider Grant Levin and Scott Foster as highlights .Regulars every week and month along with special guests sprinkled throughout. Tweaker
Henry Threadgill today became the third (living) composer from the jazz world (or perhaps I should say coming out of, in part, a jazz space) to win a Pulitzer Prize for composition, after Wynton and Ornette. While this certainly doesn't speak to the viability of the jazz business, it does highlight the continued growth of the music, and (in my estimation, at least) and the still developing unleashing of creative energy by the now 50 year old A.A.C.M. (Association for the Advancement of Creative Musicians) in Chicago.
Although I have never met Henry and have only heard him about 10 times, this news really made my day:
Two of them looking into the abyss, one looking into private equity funds.
What did he do that won the Pulitzer?
Ornette was a pure Genius.
Don't know anything about Threadgil,
but the Chicago stuff I've heard, incl World Sax Qt is a bit rough and raw for me.
"Fate is being kind to me. Fate doesn't want me to be too famous too young." -Duke Ellington at age 66 in 1965.
He was awarded a "special" one posthumously in 1999, two years AFTER Wynton Marsalis won the standard variety.
Threadgill has been one of the most interesting composers of the past 25 years -
consistent in his vision, sure of his craft, steady with his determination and crazy with
some rhythm juju!
HE certainly did NOT get it for being too famous, young OR old.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
He was trying to be the educator, people wanted to hear the Music.
It was pretentious to the extreme, and very, very dead and boring.
Their Prayer-Huddle before going onstage was annoying too.
I only liked him on I Fell in Love w/Blakey, he was a teenager then.
Don't look to me to defend Wynton! His compositional approach the last 20 years or so (for which he won his pulitzer,) seems like warmed over Ellingtonianisms in the service of essentially conservative politics hiding behind the face of Liberalism. He does have great chops ("Just think," Lester Bowie said of Wynton, "with his chops and my brain . . .,) but that doesn't add up to his position in the jazz world (corporate sponsored devision, that is.)
Ornette is clearly a genius, and I think Threadgill may be as well. Like his fellow Chicagoans and students of Muhal Richard Abrams Anthony Braxton (MacArthur recipient) and Wadada Leo Smith (Pulitzer prize finalist two years ago,) he has developed rigorous, systematic, and highly individualist methods of compositions that integrate the notated and improvisational strategies that have stood as the opposing polls of jazz practice. And he has created a huge body of work in various contexts incorporating jazz, blues, marches, as well serialism and modern "classical" music stratagies, yet his music maintains an identifiably unique and individual sound.
Musicians coming out of the freedom jazz movements of the 60's are often lumped together in one bag, but they collectively encompass a whole world of sonic, emotional, and artistic expression. The WSQ has no real Chicago connection, other than its members have often performed with various members of the A.A.C.M. and are respected adjuncts to that community. Their first performance was here in New Orleans, presented by free jazz sax legend Kidd Jordan. Kidd is still, at 81, a flame thrower of a saxophonist, but it is important to realize that so much of the A.A.C.M. (of whidh Kidd too is an esteemed associate) energies were devoted to composition and organization, and the major artists associated with them (Art Ensemble of Chicago, Anthoy Braxton, Henry Threadgill, Muhal Richard Abrams, George Lewis, Wadada Leo Smith) are best known as composers and not "free jazz" blowers. The freedom they demanded was to not be be bound by essentialist notions of what an African-American musicans should be-either notions supplied by the racist art world , the commerical music world, or by conservative Black ideologues (i.e, Albert Murray and Stanley Crouch, and their diciple Wynton Marsalis)
That record alone is a bit of a redeemer...and what makes his subsequent conservatism so frustrating, IMHO.
Back in the early 80's I had Henry on Laswells Material, the Sextet stuff album among others. I managed a video store in upscale Bethesda MD and Bill Marriott, Maury Povich and Abe Pollin were among our clients. On a Friday night a good looking, well dressed black couple comes to the counter and the guy gives me his club card and his last name is Threadgill. I asked him if he has heard of Henry. He says, yes, he's my cousin. I get excited saying I own a few of his recordings and so on. His reply with an odd look on his face was "you like that stuff?". My guess is he would have liked Material Memory Serves but probably heard some of the Sextet(t) stuff. I'll never forget the look on his face!ET
Edits: 04/19/16
I don't think he's helping the cause.
If Threadgill thinks there is "a cause," that cause wouldn't be "jazz" or any other brand or market category. Many of the great minds of "jazz" rejected that term 60 years ago for what they do (Ellington, Mingus, Roland Kirk, etc., etc.) Artists want to use all the resources available to them to (re)create their world, but if they were always to stay inside the box there would never have been "jazz" in the first place.
But don't ask the public to accept it as good or great art.
Ellington and Armstrong still held to melody.
And they earned a living so they could continue to make their art.
Nt
It is alive and well! free.ranger
At Merriman's Playhouse in South Bend, Indiana. The concert was as good as the best music I've heard, of any genre, live or recorded.
So I'd say jazz is alive and well in America.
As The Nation's Capital becomes gentrified (as have so many American Cities), the Jazz scene is starting to come back. As "Chocolate City" becomes more of "Latte," Jazz is making a comeback.
I agree that Smooth and Fusion were a toxic blow to the art form, but the music is just as resilient as the people who have played it over the past hundred years. Just as so many things have been forced to change with the advent of high tech so does the music. Some inroads and innovations have occurred and yet others need to evolve.
In D.C. there is a small club that has a novel approach to marketing the music, Jazz. The club is open two days a week and has three sessions at 6, 7, and 8 PM. This allows working musicians to get to other gigs after playing this venue. The emphasis is to make Jazz available to as many people as possible. Most people after experiencing a live set are hooked, and this venue does just that.
I have taken my 4 and 5 year old grandchildren and adults who claim they don't like Jazz. Once they sit through a set - the hook is set. Musicians love to come in for a set or two. The time for the sets allows one to get kids home to bed or or old folks their hot milk.
The beauty of this venue is there is no alcohol served and the admittance fee is $5 US. This venue is to propagate Jazz not to make a zillion dollars. The musicians take a minimal amount of money if at all. The musicians are aware you must sow seeds, and it has to be affordable for people to take the chance. The club seats maybe 100 and you may purchase soft drinks, snacks, and occasionally box dinners. There are a few tables and a lot of chairs. The club has become more and more popular and larger and larger audiences have been in attendance of late.
Due to the popularity parking has become a problem. If the parking problem is not addressed in short order the club may be forced to close. Nevertheless, this is a model that cities should try for a short while just to broaden the exposure.
I have deliberately held back on the name of the club. With the closing of a DC Jazz fixture, The Bohemian Caverns, there has been more interest in straight ahead Jazz. Word of mouth has been the primary form of advertising, and until the parking situation is resolved minimal broader marketing is probably best.
A little more commitment to the music and a little less emphasis on profit (for a night or two) will help everyone who loves Jazz, and hopefully with a broader audience a basis for the musicians to sustain themselves will be had.
DaveT
I don't agree onfusion but smooth was and is terrible and popish. Sure some fusion was bad but electric Miles w
is fusion and lots of great fusion came from guys that played with him. Those that hated Miles for going electric got over it......or not. I disliked the stuff after Star People where he covered pop like Cyndi Lauper and Michael Jackson.
I GRE up hearing pop vocal jazz in the 60's and didnt care for that but fusion brought me in the door. The musicians were often very talented. Sure not everyone's cup of tea but like I said it opened me to the whole genre.
ET
Yes, getting youngsters in is a fantastic way to build an audience, and since they are with the family, even more so.
Yoshi's in Oakland used to (maybe still do) have a Sunday afternoon "matinee" geared towards children/families
priced lower than the normal PM shows. Since most acts were there for a few days, the Sunday matinee was part
of the booking. They'd get a great deal of truly enthusiastic youngsters and the artists
would interact with the kids in Q&A/demos about the music. They'd play a shorter set than normal
and it was a slightly more casual time than, say a Friday night early set.
Eddie Palmieri (for example) was wonderful at this.
I don't know how that DC club can afford to do that - here in SF rents and overhead are so
absurdly high that would be a near impossible endeavour. BUT it would be a grand thing for
someone here to pursue in keeping the flame burning for the sake of a priceless culture.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Are there some folks trying to play something in the traditions of Monk and Mingus, to name my favorites?
I enjoyed jazz until the fusion craze and it seemed all of the fellows who should have known better took leave of their senses and jumped on the bandwagon.
I cannot remember the last time I bought a contemporaneous jazz record.
I think the jazz audience was a fragile one and when the electricity took over they quit buying records.
I do not consider Miles Davis's early electrical records fusion but eventually his records contained all of the most annoying aspects of the sub-genre.
If there is anyone on the current scene who has a comparable genius to Monk or Mingus I would love to be told about them.
This is laughable. Jazz is not dead by a long shot. There is more music produced and released by a wider variety of artist than probably anytime in the last 50 years. You just have not been looking. Check out Danilo Perez Panamonk and the Mingus Dynasty releases if you want a simple answer to your post. Jazz is worldwide now, in case you missed it.
None of them treat it with the respect due it.
ET
The American artform is more popular elsewhere.
ET
In the beginning there was Marching. Marching eventually gave way to Swinging. Swinging eventually gave way to Rocking. The one prerequisite for the continuum was that the music could be used in a dance hall or party of some kind.(As an aside, there is also the phenomena of Bopping to consider. But Bop rhythms had the tendency to tie themselves into cerebral energies; not danceable enough.)
"Rocking", for many, is one of the most *infectious* forms of musical entertainment. It clearly ties itself directly to the human nervous system and some of our most primary body rhythms and functions.Breathing, heartbeats, walking, running, repetitious labor, etc... These things rock within us, perhaps much more than they bop or swing or march or even glide within us.
Syncopation seems to have made it's way into the American consciousness via the traditions of African laborers that were at one time imported into this country in droves. African work rhythms eventually became intertwined with European marching rhythms. And so the story goes...
Once Rocking gained a foothold in music became it became difficult to moderate or control. Coincidentally - and perhaps ironically as well - the new sound in music blended in extremely well with the new sounds produced by the automated machines proliferating in industrialized societies. Rocking, Beating, Thumping, Whining, Whirring, Swishing. New Instincts, for a New Millenium.
Once people started rocking they found it hard to stop or to go backwards to Swinging and/or Marching, much less Bopping. Although Gliding was/is not completely out of the question.
Edits: 04/20/16 04/20/16
Fusion was a turn away from straight ahead just as Bebop was a turn away from Swing. The music is always changing. Serious Jazz musicians took up fusion for the new instrumentation and sounds that came from those instruments. There are lot of remarkable fusion albums and groups. In a Silent Way is one of my favorite fusion albums. Weather Report, and Hancock's Headhunters are groups that were truly popular at the time and their contributions are still standards today. The Jazz Crusaders made the jump from straight ahead Jazz. They applied their Jazz roots and morphed into the Crusaders playing fusion to a huge audiences based on rock and roll rhythms. Fusion expanded the Jazz base at the time when the baby boomers were experimenting with sound and other forms of sensory augmentation.
With the advent of Disco there just wasn't a lot to improvise upon. This led to Smooth. The musicians took to noodling on top of the dance rhythms. The music execs quickly comprehended how little overhead was required to produce Smooth. Drawn by the thirst for profits Smooth was pushed. Unlike fusion and the other Jazz forms before Smooth, the straight ahead improvised solos disappeared. The one thing that Smooth had going for it was it did not require the listener to focus or concentrate. Smooth was just static on the line.
There were and are a number of Jazz musicians that fought the good fight and survived the dark years of "Smooth." These musicians for the most part played to smaller and smaller audiences, because what they played required the listener's involvement. Smooth worked well for background noise and profits.
Fortunately, Smooth has died (is dying) off. A number of the sentinels of Jazz have survived and a great number of young Jazz musicians who didn't drink the Kool-Aid of the dark period have emerged. Jazz is still alive it just has to find new means of delivery. The challenge for Jazz is the evolution of the short attention span of perspective audiences. However, just as most basic human experiences are still cherished: sex, taste, and smell. Music and and particularly Jazz will endure to those that are willing to take the time and listen.
So far sythethizers and computer music have been just novelties and real performances by real human beings are still the baseline for music.
DaveT
Sounds like you're suffering from you can never go back home again issues. Fusion annoyed you enough that you couldn't see the great straight ahead that you like that was still there.I guess you consider DeJohnettes stuff with Lester Bowie, Eddie Gomez and Abercrombie fusion. To me its in the middle. Third Plane, all acoustic trio of Tony Williams, Ron Carter and Herbie Hancock is one of a gazillion things that fit your definition of jazz and they never stopped happening. They were in the record stores and on real jazz radio which has always been rare. Especially out west.
Early Miles electric from Bitches Brew forward was quite electric and fusion. In a Silent Way to me was still jazz even with electric piano and guitar.
No old jazz guys started playing fusion only younger guys did fusion or 95% of it was young guys anyway. Those older guys didn't stop doing there thing. Something changed in you. Jazz became of many sub genres as did rock later. The stuff you liked was still there. Sadly Monk, Mingus, Coltrane and others died. They were one of a kind or a generation if you will. These types are not replaced. There were many still carrying their torch.
ET
Edits: 04/19/16 04/19/16
Nah, it was smooth jazz. Fusion killed disco, and we're all grateful.
There's nobody comparable to Monk or Mingus but Joshua Redman is very impressive. I heard him in Minneapolis on a visit a few years ago.
nt
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Homer Simpson
much of what has been going on for 25 years as they've slowly, consistently built it into a powerhouse of booking
and strength. They may be all for jazz (and the tons of non jazz they now book), but only if it benefits THEM.
There's only so much of an audience for jazz here (as everywhere but maybe NO or NYC), and the artists that would bring in
enough bucks to allow booking less successful artists in "off" nights to keep a club open, get swept up by SFJAZZ.
I never went to the Savanna jazz club though I walked by it hundreds of times. NEVER saw anyone booked there I wanted to see and don't just go to listen to music for the sake of it. Plus the place was not at all inviting. A restaurant opened and rapidly closed recently in that space - it's a tough block for ANY business to make it on - never DID figure out how Savanna lasted as long as it did. They must have had a small but dedicated crowd. But that's just one jazz club of many that managed to make a go for a while and then faded.
Remember also that ANY small business has a limited life span, and the the reasons for that are legion.
As also referenced in the article Yoshi's was a clusterfuck from the get go. They did EVERYTHING wrong with LOTS of help from the bumbling SF bureaucrats (which is redundant) and Willie Brown was at the helm. The Oakland club is nice; the SF club is the definition of SUCKS.
In my observations the jazz scene here isn't, hasn't been and won't be any more or less than it has in the past 25 years. The glory days are LONG gone, there's a core of devoted fans that cling to the few small places left and SFJAZZ looms hard and heavy by booking anyone/thing that has the potential to generate any income.
There may be a small group of jazz musicians making a living playing somewhere around here, but I'm way out of that loop. This also applies to
many non jazz musicians. There are plenty of small clubs to play at but you won't make much (if any) dinero.
But then the musicians I know aren't in it for the money; they all have day jobs.
Is jazz dead here? NO. Is and has it been moribund for a long time? YES, there seems to be just enough of an audience to keep it on life support.
Occasionally an editor will notice this and an article will be written.
That IS a good article!
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Most Bookings aren't Jazz, IMO.
The last time I went, the Piano was Bright , Brittle, more in common with Ice Pick than Music.
keeping up with things (obviously!). Haven't been to the Oakland club in a few years - it was fine then and we enjoyed
many great shows there over the years but the old club on Claremont was always a superior club, even when it was upstairs
from the sushi joint!
Remember when you could catch a GREAT jazz show at the GAMH?
Even 6-7 years ago saw Cassandra Wilson there. That won't happen again.
SFJAZZ has a LARGE, GREEDY GRASP!
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
...in the SF Chronicle today, there is sure a lot of it going on.
That's very tough.
Once the big band/swing era ended - and it didn't last very long - most
so-called jazz musicians could not and did not make a living playing
their ax. The ones who did were players like Louis Armstrong and Ella
Fitzgerald whose very name on the bill made people want to show up where
they were playing. They commanded premium dollar. A lot of other guys,
like Benny Carter and Harry Edison, to name only two, made good to
great money doing studio work - commercials, backing rock acts, etc.,
etc. But the majority had to have a "day job" because there was no great
demand for their services, the big bands having gone the way of the
dinosaur. Very few big bands survived into the 50s and beyond, Ellington
and Basie and Kenton being the only one I can think of immediately.
So I don't think much has changed. The few will do well, the rest will
scuffle.
(Everyone's employability would greatly increase if jazz became a more
accessible form of music, but that's a topic for another time).
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: