Why is Jazz a Four Letter Word?

But it's sure great for the rest of us later to study, learn from and ponder over and consider in regards to the true worth and value of their contributions they brought to the table and left behind for generations to come. Leonardo da Vinci's works are hundreds of years old at this point but still have a MAJOR impact on other artist TODAY. Legacies DO have importance whether intended or not for following generations by example to use as reference points in any area of study just as it also goes applied to music and the musicians and what they brought to the table.

I'll take Tony any day of the week for my own personal {musical} reasons........:}

Fair point, Stan. The legacies of inspired artists are great for the rest of us.

For me, I've been too close to the tortured artiste and seen how much good it did her personally (ie. bugger all) to ever have an interest in creating my own legacy, and that includes areas where I am a more influential "player" than in music (where my impact is zip). My concern is the now and the immediate future. Maybe that's good in some ways, maybe not, but that's how it is. In music that translates to focusing on having a good time and hopefully giving others a good time since I am a wheel in mammon's machine during the day.

The worst thing was when Mum got tired of being a poor artiste and went commercial. She simply couldn't get the stuff published. And that's something I think gets forgotten at times. It's a different skillset in writing in the same way as there's a different skillset required to play simple forms of music to jazz.

Some can cross over and some can't. Interest is the key. Mum could write powerful and harrowing tales of family life but couldn't cut it in pulp romance. In hindsight, she didn't believe in it and that was the missing link. Whatever you do, you need that sincerity.

I sometimes see an assumption that jazz players, with their wonderful techniques can easily encompass all that simple rock/pop drummers can do. Technically yes, emotionally no.

Most jazzers would go nuts with all the simple ostinato. You'll hear jazzers play excellent simple pop sessions ... but playing it night after night in a band without feeling like a caged lion and either leaving or eventually pissing everyone else in the band off? Not impossible, depending on the personality, but ...

There is a such a thing as being overqualified for the job. We all have our place.

If Tony W was alive I'd take him over Meg W too but he'd need to lose the beard :)
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know of any musical genre that can be considered "dead"?


Anything that was not recorded. What was the most popular tune in Rome circa AD 42?

Sadly we have lost a great deal.
 
"There is hardly any money interest in art, and music will be there when money is gone." - Duke Ellington

I think this is something that has not been addressed in this discussion, and it certainly does play a large role. Whether people like it or not, there are two types of music: music that is being made solely for the purpose of making money, and music that is being made for the love of the music.

That, for me, is the difference between music that is art and music that is simply being made by people with dollar signs in their eyes. The only pop musician in recent memory that I feel is making music for the love of music is Alicia Keys. It certainly shows in her interviews, where she talks about the music of Bach, Beethoven, Gershwin, and Ellington among others. She takes the time to study the musicians that came before her and appreciates great artists in other styles of music. How many pop stars out there have you seen talking about musicians like these in interviews? I certainly don't recall any. That's why I have great respect for somebody like Alicia Keys. She's writing and playing her music and not what some record producer wants to bring in the dough. Do you think you could have a conversation with Britney Spears discussing the composers mentioned? I don't think so.

Why does pop music not last? Because other than the very few exceptions (like Alicia), it's simply made for the almighty dollar, and nothing more. How many times have you seen this scenario?: There's a song that's really hot that is getting all the attention. Constantly played on the radio, at clubs, etc. People love it! Six months down the road, it's time has passed and everybody that so loved that song six months ago couldn't give a rat's behind about it now.

Jazz is a style of music that is made for the love of the music. People don't become jazz musicians because they want to be popular and make the big bucks. The same can be said for other styles of music. I'm a big fan of Celtic music, and have even been trying to learn to play bodhran. Celtic musicians aren't playing their music because they want to be popular. They're doing it for the love of the music. I think Duke said it best in the above quote.
 
I sometimes see an assumption that jazz players, with their wonderful techniques can easily encompass all that simple rock/pop drummers can do. Technically yes, emotionally no.

Even technically there can be, well, issues. I got a house-band gig when I was a kid, and the drummer I replaced was a jazz drummer, a quite good one too, he'd played with some big names and all that. He was a friend of the club owner but the band was playing rock music, "popular music." It sounded terrible. It sounded like a jazz drummer playing with a rock band. The thing is he just didn't have the crispness, the steadiness and groove to play that music. The guys wanted me and I got the gig.

I was once in an R&B band and we decided that it would be cool to get a saxophone. We had one guy come up and he was all over the place, he just didn't know what he was doing. This guy could probably burn through chorus-after-chorus of "Cherokee" but he was clueless when it came to playing the blues.

Now both of these guys needed the work but in the real world of popular music they were anachronisms, they couldn't do the job. And in both cases their resentment was palpable. We didn't get it. Why not just, you know, play jazz if that's what you do?

Since then I've come to know a lot more about the jazz scene than I did then. And I can see how frustrating it must be to have to take a day job of some sort while "lesser" musicians are working. That's got to hurt, no?
 
I think we're talking about different things. I can't deny that Meg White is influential. The question is do I like the message she is being influential with? I'm all in favor of women playing drums, I just want them to play well. I think much the same way about Brittany Spears. Sure she is influential, but do I want my 4 year old wearing a belly shirt and acting all crazy?

Certainly, the influence to whom is important as well. It's easier to argue your point with Brittany than with Karen Carpenter. I was thinking the same thing about Johnny Lydon. There does need to be a perceived level of honest expression as a musician in the equation. My point is that in order to get a rich and full perspective on the history of music, you need to be honest about the phenomenon as a cultural process. Ultimately, Bach is "Bach" because he is still influential on musicians like Alicia keys, Stanley Clarke or Stevie Vai. Pretty amazing when you think about it. Who alive in the alst fifty years will be able to say that 200 hundred or so years from now?

A. I meant to give Ken kudos for a fascinating post. Love your work, Ken.

You should. I was setting you up to say, "It's not always about art, it's about expression." What happened? (I would have agreed with you in this context.)
 
"There is hardly any money interest in art, and music will be there when money is gone." - Duke Ellington


Whether people like it or not, there are two types of music: music that is being made solely for the purpose of making money, and music that is being made for the love of the music.

"There are only two kinds of music, good and bad."
Duke Ellington

There has been a lot of bad music made for money that people loved. Usually the composer. I know, I had to play some of it! ;-)



The only pop musician in recent memory that I feel is making music for the love of music is Alicia Keys.

This statement cannot be verified with proof, it is too far reaching. I believe many pop musicians love what they do. This can only be seen as a matter of opinion. Until one has met and spoken to every pop musician on earth, one simply cannot know. I personally know some very fine pop musicians who have been schooled and know what they are talking about.




It certainly shows in her interviews, where she talks about the music of Bach, Beethoven, Gershwin, and Ellington among others. She takes the time to study the musicians that came before her and appreciates great artists in other styles of music. How many pop stars out there have you seen talking about musicians like these in interviews? I certainly don't recall any.

This is really no different to any one of the fine drummers on this website who have taken the time to research Zutty Singleton, Chick Webb, Art Blakey Tony Williams, Ginger Baker Gavin Harrison and any other of the wonderful people to have played drums. That she did her work properly should not be seen as any special or unusual virtue.

That's why I have great respect for somebody like Alicia Keys. She's writing and playing her music and not what some record producer wants to bring in the dough. Do you think you could have a conversation with Britney Spears discussing the composers mentioned? I don't think so.

Does she have 100% control over her career? Am I really to believe that in the high stakes game of the music business that the accountants, managers, studio heads, press agents and the like have no say??? If Alicia wanted to release an album called "Polka for aging lovers", they'd really let her do it???

Why does pop music not last?

It does last. How many times has Motown been sampled?


Because other than the very few exceptions (like Alicia), it's simply made for the almighty dollar, and nothing more.

The wrecking crew did not record pop music for the love of it. At least Earl Palmer didn't. It was for the money. However, look at the resulting decades. Many old pop tunes are now studied and taken very seriously. James Gadson said "Old school is the school."

While something may have it's roots in an economic basis, this does not in itself discredit it.




How many times have you seen this scenario?: There's a song that's really hot that is getting all the attention. Constantly played on the radio, at clubs, etc. People love it! Six months down the road, it's time has passed and everybody that so loved that song six months ago couldn't give a rat's behind about it now.

Just wait 15 to 20 years. You'll hear it again.

Jazz is a style of music that is made for the love of the music. People don't become jazz musicians because they want to be popular and make the big bucks.

It is not only the style of music, also the instrument. How many superstar accordian players are there? Your statements are too all encompassing to be accurate.



The same can be said for other styles of music. I'm a big fan of Celtic music, and have even been trying to learn to play bodhran. Celtic musicians aren't playing their music because they want to be popular. They're doing it for the love of the music. I think Duke said it best in the above quote.


There is money in Celtic music. I know many people who make a decent living from it. Good luck with the bodhran. I too play it.
 
Michael, I agree with Wy that the lines are more blurred than you suggest. Many, many popular artists have played for the love of it. They often compromise, sure, but they still find ways of slipping their passions into the music. After all, what prompted them to put in the work to build enough skills to go pro? Once you start learning an instrument, once you get carried away with it enough to be functional the bug inevitably bites.

My band, for example, is purely hobbyist. We have no plans. It's not by any stretch my first choice of genre but it's what I have available in a pain-free way - convenient, nice people and the musicians are of reasonable standard but not too good for me. If you're not a beast player, pragmatism often plays a role, and many brilliant players make pragmatic musical decisions. Bill Bruford rejoined Crimson in 1993 even though he preferred jazz. He simply needed the gig at the time.

Sadly, the business really has taken over big time now and there certainly are plenty of people whose focus is more on stardom and $$ than the art, who have forgotten the things about music that got them high. Thank god for the internet, I say. Lots of crap, of course, but also lots of people playing for the love of it and the chance for bands to control their own promotion and distribution. At least the record companies don't control the web (yet).

And let's not forget the other form of payment that corrupts music-making - ego and status - brilliant chops on display that would make any circus acrobat proud but not much depth of expression or passion on show. Same coin, just the flipside.

Haha Ken, but isn't expression an inevitable byproduct of art - even when it's unintended? What's expressed might just be cynicism or conservatism or the wish not to express but our art, regardless of quality or motivation says something about us. For all I know my music might say I'm a complete gronk but it says something about me.

That's something I love about the Your Playing section here. It really fleshes out the personalities.
 
Unfortunately, it's not allowing me to quote the entire post, so I'll just have to number my responses:

1. I said that "the only recent pop musician that I feel is makeing music for the love of the music is Alicia Keys". In other words, I clearly stated that it's my opinion, not gospel.

2. I'm referring to modern day pop music, not Motown. Marvin Gaye refused to make any more recordings for Barry Gordy unless he released "What's Going On". I certainly seem to notice a difference in older people talking about pop music from their younger years than the younger generations nowadays. Today, when younger people hear a song that was popular say 7 or 8 years ago the first thing I usually hear is "Oh my gosh, this song is so old!" not "Man, I really love this song!" Sorry, but I don't consider the music of Britney Spears on the same level as "What's Going On" or "Songs In The Key Of Life". Just wait 20 years and see if people now value the pop music of today the way my parents' generation does of the albums I mentioned.

3. No, I wasn't implying that she has 100% control over her record company, just that she's still doing her thing and not changing what she does simply to follow everybody else. In my eyes, that does count for something.

4. I don't disagree that it's also the instrument. But it also depends on how the band utilizes the instrument. Flogging Molly is a very well known group (and a personal favorite of mine) that uses the accordion very effectively.My "statements are too all encompassing to be accurate". I never said that this was all that there was to it. You're just taking it that way. Would you then say that my statements have no accuracy at all? If you want me to go into a million details, well, I honestly don't have the time (especially after all the energy the students take out of me!). However, just because I can't go into every single detail doesn't mean that my statements have no truth whatsoever.

There is money in Celtic music. I know many people who make a decent living from it. Good luck with the bodhran. I too play it.

Yes, there is money in Celtic music, just like there is money in jazz music. Recent guys like Herbie Hancock and Michael Brecker (RIP) make/made a darn good living playing jazz. However, do people go into jazz with the motivation to make the big bucks like Herbie and Michael? I hope not because they're in for a let-down. The same applies for Celtic music. Just because there are some musicians making a good living off of it doesn't change the fact that it's a million times harder to make a whole lot of money playing Celtic music than pop music.

Thanks for the good luck wishes on the bodhran! It's certainly a lot harder than it looks to the naked eye (not that I was expecting it to be easy - I've already learned that lesson with instruments)! Always good to see another bodhran player. Have you checked out John Joe Kelly?

Here's a cool link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ChbigufBC8
 
Polly, like I said, it's my opinion. I'm not saying that no pop artist has ever done it for the love of the music. I only said that of the pop musicians out there today, she's the only one that has come across to me as doing her thing and playing her music rather than just being another sheep in the herd. Sorry, but today's pop music isn't Motown. How can you really compare the two? Pop music of three or four decades ago is not being made like it was during the great Motown years. It's a whole different ballgame now. If you listened to a whole lot of pop music from the golden years of Motown and a lot of the pop music of today, you certainly recognize a lot more of a difference than just the sound of the music.

Nobody here is going to draw a definite line. I think that's one of the problems is that in our society nowadays we always want definite lines drawn. Nobody can explain the complexity of music by drawing definite lines. It just isn't possible. So we can't expect peoples opinions to be something that is all encompassing. Just because somebody voices their opinion on something doesn't mean that they consider their opinions to be all encompassing. That's what makes it an opinion - how you perceive it. I'm not implying that anything that I'm saying is gospel, but I do have my opinion, and I shouldn't have to go into a million details because, after all, who on here is going to say something that is all encompassing and just nail every single point? Nobody. It's always going to be a matter of opinion between all of us. All that anybody truly knows is their own experiences, and those experiences are what we base our opinions off of. In other words, who is right? Nobody. Because one person's experiences are not another's. Your experiences are not mine, and mine are not yours.

Polly, that second paragraph is just a general thought that I'm expressing. Not directed at you personally in any way. :)

This thread is great! Just when you think it's about to stop, something else gets it going again!
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the good luck wishes on the bodhran! It's certainly a lot harder than it looks to the naked eye (not that I was expecting it to be easy - I've already learned that lesson with instruments)! Always good to see another bodhran player. Have you checked out John Joe Kelly?

Here's a cool link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ChbigufBC8


Hi Michael.
I think we agree then more than disagree.

Thanks for the link. You may enjoy this site: http://www.bodhranworld.com/


You may also enjoy trying this instrument, the pandeiro. http://www.pandeiro.com/

A solo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnLV-_psQpQ

It's a great little portable drumkit for drummers. I use it to play accoustic shows where I could never use a drum set. Fantastic drum.
 
Fair point, Stan. The legacies of inspired artists are great for the rest of us.

For me, I've been too close to the tortured artiste and seen how much good it did her personally (ie. bugger all) to ever have an interest in creating my own legacy, and that includes areas where I am a more influential "player" than in music (where my impact is zip). My concern is the now and the immediate future. Maybe that's good in some ways, maybe not, but that's how it is. In music that translates to focusing on having a good time and hopefully giving others a good time since I am a wheel in mammon's machine during the day.

The worst thing was when Mum got tired of being a poor artiste and went commercial. She simply couldn't get the stuff published. And that's something I think gets forgotten at times. It's a different skillset in writing in the same way as there's a different skillset required to play simple forms of music to jazz.

Some can cross over and some can't. Interest is the key. Mum could write powerful and harrowing tales of family life but couldn't cut it in pulp romance. In hindsight, she didn't believe in it and that was the missing link. Whatever you do, you need that sincerity.

I sometimes see an assumption that jazz players, with their wonderful techniques can easily encompass all that simple rock/pop drummers can do. Technically yes, emotionally no.

Most jazzers would go nuts with all the simple ostinato. You'll hear jazzers play excellent simple pop sessions ... but playing it night after night in a band without feeling like a caged lion and either leaving or eventually pissing everyone else in the band off? Not impossible, depending on the personality, but ...

There is a such a thing as being overqualified for the job. We all have our place.

If Tony W was alive I'd take him over Meg W too but he'd need to lose the beard :)


None of us Polly know when we are alive what kind of impact what we do will have {if any} on future generations but we have to keep moving forward if it's our life blood on the line. All we can do is be honest with ourselves and let the cards fall where they may in that department unless we directly play the power/political status game to directly seek fame past the coffin which may fail in the grand scheme of things. Real meat of content is the only hope for that.

Sometimes we need to make choices to get a better grip on dealing with the true realities of life which can create difficulties with our "ideals" we wish to achieve. Your story of your mother is a great example of that never ending struggle many have {and will} be faced with.

Only thing I take issue with is the premise of the jazz musicians state of mind over "others". Most honest jazz players don't look at the playing over others but are just honestly trying to just do their "thing" without judgment on what others choose to do. Playing the technical card bothers me too greatly to be quite honest. Technique is a part of emotional expression and not a seperate thing from the degree of technique needed to conceptually express what is needed within the CONTEXT of the music at hand. You can't make blanket statements that cover all forms of emotional musical expression and can't condemn a jazz drummer of lacking emotion if by choice they work on and the degree of skill they work on to achieve the musical end result. If a certain degree of technique or skill knowledge is required to deliver the final musical end product then that's just part and parcel of the combined whole for me to play honest music at your personal best. Most mature players in any genre of music know how to use their technique within each individual musical context to the best effect. Jazz drummers are no different just that it requires its own language of technical/musical skills to best express emotionally what you're trying to get across. I have lots to say emotionally on the drums within music and spent years on working on my "technique" to express it successfully without feeling like i'm being held back in achieving that goal in some way or another. That's my point.....
 
The unspoken concept here is sort of bothering me. That concept is that only jazz drummers can play jazz. I don't buy that, and I know that's going to make some people angry and that's the last thing I want to do, believe me.

See, playing the drums well is just not the same as barely getting by, being a weekend-hobbyist drummer. Playing the drums well is exactly the same thing as playing the trumpet well. And to play well you have to do it all the time, it has to be your life, it's all encompassing and it is, in fact, your livelihood, the way you make your living.

Of course I know that a lot of people here do not play the drums professionally and that's cool, eveyone's cool here but maybe that's the whole source of all this conflict where jazz is concerned.

The thing is that I can play jazz and I can play it pretty well, but I'm not a "jazz drummer." What is a jazz drummer anyway? The only answer I can come up with is that a jazz drummer is someone who makes his or her living by playing jazz and nothing but jazz. But then you look at a guy like, say, Ted Poor, who's a very fine jazz drummer but he doesn't rely on jazz to pay his bills. If he did he'd be living on the street.

The idea that jazz is only for the select few is so far outdated that, if it was a fact, jazz would have been well and truly dead for years if not decades. It's just not that big a deal, and that is where I part ways with the jazz guys who insist that jazz is some sort of esoteric society that is only open to those who've passed some sort of test, those who have finally arrived at the secret innner sanctum by passing some kind of initiation rite.

What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a certain strictness, a sort of finger-wagging "you-must-obey-the-rules-you-have-to-do-it-this-way" sort of attitude where jazz drumming is concerned, and that's, well, that's no fun at all, and it's not at all encouraging to someone starting out and seeking to express themselves, rules be damned.
 
The unspoken concept here is sort of bothering me. That concept is that only jazz drummers can play jazz. I don't buy that, and I know that's going to make some people angry and that's the last thing I want to do, believe me.

See, playing the drums well is just not the same as barely getting by, being a weekend-hobbyist drummer. Playing the drums well is exactly the same thing as playing the trumpet well. And to play well you have to do it all the time, it has to be your life, it's all encompassing and it is, in fact, your livelihood, the way you make your living.

Of course I know that a lot of people here do not play the drums professionally and that's cool, eveyone's cool here but maybe that's the whole source of all this conflict where jazz is concerned.

The thing is that I can play jazz and I can play it pretty well, but I'm not a "jazz drummer." What is a jazz drummer anyway? The only answer I can come up with is that a jazz drummer is someone who makes his or her living by playing jazz and nothing but jazz. But then you look at a guy like, say, Ted Poor, who's a very fine jazz drummer but he doesn't rely on jazz to pay his bills. If he did he'd be living on the street.

The idea that jazz is only for the select few is so far outdated that, if it was a fact, jazz would have been well and truly dead for years if not decades. It's just not that big a deal, and that is where I part ways with the jazz guys who insist that jazz is some sort of esoteric society that is only open to those who've passed some sort of test, those who have finally arrived at the secret innner sanctum by passing some kind of initiation rite.

What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a certain strictness, a sort of finger-wagging "you-must-obey-the-rules-you-have-to-do-it-this-way" sort of attitude where jazz drumming is concerned, and that's, well, that's no fun at all, and it's not at all encouraging to someone starting out and seeking to express themselves, rules be damned.


I don't get your point of view at all in the latest rambling Jay... opps I mean Conrad. Got some "issues" to deal with? If you're a jazz drummer post some clips . If you don't consider yourself a jazz drummer.....well...... whatever........ who cares since life goes on.

A jazz drummer..... a drummer that plays jazz.... pretty simple answer really. No gray area or confusion on the subject for me. Cut the crap and BS. Life to short for unnecessary "complications" on the subject and jazz is far from dead as are jazz drummers to those who really still enjoy playing it.

Enough smoke already.........i'm not going to put up with this parlour game of hide my true identity yet again to derail this thread with further confusing spin talk. At least I know what {and who} I am.
 
Last edited:
The unspoken concept here is sort of bothering me. That concept is that only jazz drummers can play jazz. I don't buy that, and I know that's going to make some people angry and that's the last thing I want to do, believe me.

See, playing the drums well is just not the same as barely getting by, being a weekend-hobbyist drummer. Playing the drums well is exactly the same thing as playing the trumpet well. And to play well you have to do it all the time, it has to be your life, it's all encompassing and it is, in fact, your livelihood, the way you make your living.

Of course I know that a lot of people here do not play the drums professionally and that's cool, eveyone's cool here but maybe that's the whole source of all this conflict where jazz is concerned.

The thing is that I can play jazz and I can play it pretty well, but I'm not a "jazz drummer." What is a jazz drummer anyway? The only answer I can come up with is that a jazz drummer is someone who makes his or her living by playing jazz and nothing but jazz. But then you look at a guy like, say, Ted Poor, who's a very fine jazz drummer but he doesn't rely on jazz to pay his bills. If he did he'd be living on the street.

The idea that jazz is only for the select few is so far outdated that, if it was a fact, jazz would have been well and truly dead for years if not decades. It's just not that big a deal, and that is where I part ways with the jazz guys who insist that jazz is some sort of esoteric society that is only open to those who've passed some sort of test, those who have finally arrived at the secret innner sanctum by passing some kind of initiation rite.

What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a certain strictness, a sort of finger-wagging "you-must-obey-the-rules-you-have-to-do-it-this-way" sort of attitude where jazz drumming is concerned, and that's, well, that's no fun at all, and it's not at all encouraging to someone starting out and seeking to express themselves, rules be damned.

But there is a difference, Conrad.

I, like you fall in the second category of a non jazz drummer who loves and plays jazz and can get away with it. But I do recognize the difference between the two camps you describe.

I recognize the difference between Colauita's jazz and Brian Blade's jazz. And thats two astounding players that both play jazz. Or Weckl and Eric Harland... and so on and so on.

I'm not making a qualitative judgement here, but one is fully and singularly soaked in jazzjuice while the other is bringing a lot of other flavors to their jazz as well.

I dont think anyone is proposing that jazz is for a select few. Like its been said before, the real cats dont really care, and the fact that it isn't mainstream music, it will therefore have fewer takers anyway.

...
 
But there is a difference, Conrad.


I dont think anyone is proposing that jazz is for a select few. Like its been said before, the real cats dont really care, and the fact that it isn't mainstream music, it will therefore have fewer takers anyway.

...

Right on........


The real players simply play the music, that's all that matters Abe.

I say save the BS talk to the posers who want to muddy the waters of true understanding with further confusion and "issues".
 
I dont think anyone is proposing that jazz is for a select few. Like its been said before, the real cats dont really care, and the fact that it isn't mainstream music, it will therefore have fewer takers anyway.

Yes, that is what it boils down to Aydee. Jazz is not for the select few. Since when has jazz tried to turn people away? I think people are confusing the refusal of jazz musicians to join the crowd and play what's popular as a refusal to let people in. I don't think that jazz is exclusionary by any means. Just look at how many different styles of music have been incorporated into jazz. Jazz is one of the most inclusionary styles of music out there. I don't recall Tito Puente or any of the great Latin jazz artists being excluded by jazz musicians/fans. Where does this whole notion of jazz musicians/jazz fans being exclusionary come from?
 
Yes, that is what it boils down to Aydee. Jazz is not for the select few. Since when has jazz tried to turn people away? I think people are confusing the refusal of jazz musicians to join the crowd and play what's popular as a refusal to let people in. I don't think that jazz is exclusionary by any means. Just look at how many different styles of music have been incorporated into jazz. Jazz is one of the most inclusionary styles of music out there. I don't recall Tito Puente or any of the great Latin jazz artists being excluded by jazz musicians/fans. Where does this whole notion of jazz musicians/jazz fans being exclusionary come from?

No worries and it's just simply BS talk guys to derail the truth we've tried to present in the thread that actual players understand and share and the respect they have for other folks going about the business of doing their own thing.

It's all smoke and mirrors from the man behind the curtain just like in the movie.........
 
Michael said:
Polly, that second paragraph is just a general thought that I'm expressing. Not directed at you personally in any way. :)

No drama, Michael. I didn't see it as personal, just that my own example came to mind regarding musical compromises and pragmatic decisions we make. All of my bands has had mucho pragmatism. For a start, it's hard for a drummer with oddball tastes to find others with the same taste. Then there's compromise for audiences. If you're playing in a beer barn, you need plenty of dancy numbers, even if you prefer more esoteric fare.

Steamer said:
None of us Polly know when we are alive what kind of impact what we do will have {if any} on future generations but we have to keep moving forward if it's our life blood on the line. All we can do is be honest with ourselves and let the cards fall where they may in that department unless we directly play the power/political status game to directly seek fame past the coffin which may fail in the grand scheme of things. Real meat of content is the only hope for that.

Sometimes we need to make choices to get a better grip on dealing with the true realities of life which can create difficulties with our "ideals" we wish to achieve. Your story of your mother is a great example of that never ending struggle many have {and will} be faced with.

Heh, I have a pretty clear idea of what my impact on future generations will be :) Maybe there's a tiny chance I'll make a minor splash if I eventually drink from the poisoned chalice that is my only obvious talent in life - writing. I inherited the creative urge from Mum, albeit watered down, but I prefer to channel it into less productive (for me) but more social / interactive pursuits.

The creative urge is a mixed blessing and you talked about that struggle. Creative activity gives us wonderful moments but it sends us down terribly rocky roads. We put in massive effort that eats heavily into our capacity to earn good $$ and build a sustaining personal life. A lot of artists struggle in those areas (I'm one), yet if we don't create ... something ... anything ... then we go stir crazy. There's no choice - caught between the devil and the deep blue.

Somtimes I wish I never had this urge to create, that I could just be a normal, sane human being but each attempt has resulted in spectacular failure. I can function in the normal world as a somewhat amusing loony on the sidelines who can occasionally be useful. The pain comes when I see that what I've created is third rate shite unworthy of appearance on a pack of breakfast cereal. At other times, when the muse is with me, it's better than sex

I think this could just as easily apply to a lot of artists :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSd73J6OAXA
 
No worries and it's just simply BS talk guys to derail the truth we've tried to present in the thread that actual players understand and share and the respect they have for other folks going about the business of doing their own thing.

It's all smoke and mirrors from the man behind the curtain just like in the movie.........

Indeed, Stan. We have both made our POV as jazz musicians clear, and some people - no matter how many times you have tried to get your point across - just constantly have to stir the pot. Luckily that only makes up a very small minority of posters, so the discussion, by all means, has been quite enjoyable overall. But yes, there are people who are always looking to prod to get one of us PO'd enough to go on a rant, and in turn, make us look like examples that will support the stereotypes which we have been discussing.
 
Back
Top