Playing the saxophone How do you justify jazz?

[JayeNM]

I find it interesting that people who have the standpoint that all art should be allowed to exist without critique (either like or dislike without judgement)

Who said that?

And, also, when you say "allowed" allowed by who? Or, worse, banned by who?

Agreed, nobody said that. This is where it goes overboard a bit.

I can understand and occasionally agree with folks who are angry at art exhibits where really, there is literally no object, even, to look at. I can also understand being miffed at art which seemingly shows zero craft.

But I challenge any musician who seem to quickly dismiss art installations as rubbish ...yet will also happily dive in to "justifying" say, "outside jazz" or other genres which can seem random or atonal to those not indoctrinated nor even familiar with them.

There is a double-standard going on there, methinks.

Some of those pieces or installations, again when provided with a context or intent or even just the viewer familiarizing themselves with the artist's general modus operandi, can start to have more meaning and richness (or at least not be dismissed) than initially meets the eye.

The same way giving a second listen of music to what seemed initially to be nothing more than some sort of chaotic audial assault, once provided with some context re the creator or time period, can also provide a different perspective on it.

No, not always, but sometimes...

 

[Pete Effamy]

But I challenge any musician who seem to quickly dismiss art installations as rubbish ...yet will also happily dive in to "justifying" say, "outside jazz" or other genres which can seem random or atonal to those not indoctrinated nor even familiar with them.

There is a double-standard going on there, methinks.

I don’t think so, because instruments are being played - most likely well. So, there’s something of a skill set on show. Unlike “Whitewashed Wall” which was also displayed in all its glory at the Guggenheim along with the beautiful cardboard boxes.

 

[Pete Effamy]

Some of those pieces or installations, again when provided with a context or intent or even just the viewer familiarizing themselves with the artist's general modus operandi, can start to have more meaning and richness (or at least not be dismissed) than initially meets the eye.

Yes. Whitewashed Wall. Got his / her MO. Very high on the richness of the white too.

 

[Pete Effamy]

I just think that curators - the last in line before public consumption (or endurance) should say a little more often “nah, not this time sunshine “.

 

[Targa]

It was back in the ‘60s when there were two artworks in the news, a layer of bricks and a blank white canvas.
I think it was Arthur Dooley said I would use the bricks for walls, put the canvas on top and that Urinal inside and have the most expensive s*** house in the world.

 

[Dr G]

What music would you curate for these exhibits?

 

[Pete Effamy]

What music would you curate for these exhibits?

Not a painted wall. Or a few strewn cardboard boxes. I’d like to see some professional pride and discernment.

I’m intrigued by stuff like this being defended. Is it along the lines of:

“I disagree with what you say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” - forgive the paraphrasing.

It’s Emperors New Clothes.

Or are some saying that this stuff is just not understood and if it was then it might be liked a bit ?

We come back to the music conundrum then:

They’d like it if they understood it.

On those notes, I loved Tge Rite of Spring the minute I heard it. No clue about understanding it. I have understood it now for a few decades and still love it.

Didn’t much like Parker or Coltrane for many a year. I do now. Don’t know if that is thru understanding it or not, but both ways obviously worked for me.

 

[Pete Effamy]

What music would you curate for these exhibits?

Oh … music ?

 

[turf3]

Interesting question. My family baulks at jazz. They just shut their ears off. Frankly, I can understand it. Hardcore jazz lacks a natural beauty and accessability. I have given up to explain jazz probably because I don‘t understand it very well myself. I can listen to Coltrane but I am not enjoying it and quite a few modern jazz players are just noodling to my ears. I remember Kamasi Washingtons album Epic. It was hyped when it came out and I couldn‘t stand it. To me soul and funk appeals a a few more“commercial“ players.

Strictly personal, to me explaining jazz not worth the effort .

What do you mean by "hardcore"? Is Lester Young with Billie Holiday "hardcore"?

 

[Zasterz]

Didn’t much like Parker or Coltrane for many a year. I do now. Don’t know if that is thru understanding it or not

The thing is, hearing isn’t static, it changes over time as your musicianship/musical understanding advances. I was handed a difficult piece of music to learn last week that I spent at least 3 days feeling like was random notes and time values. I honestly thought it would never sound like melody to me. I thought it was complicated and overly cerebral, joyless.

But then after a few days something clicked and today I’m walking around singing it to myself like it’s the most natural, catchy tune. This is our brains organizing, arranging, understanding patterns etc. I can never go back to hearing it the way I did a week ago when it made no sense. In this way it’s just like language— something goes from being random sound to being ideas once you understand it.

 

[Grumps]

Didn’t much like Parker or Coltrane for many a year. I do now. Don’t know if that is thru understanding it or not, but both ways obviously worked for me.

There was a time when I would go back to a recording I have of A Love Supreme. I'd give it a listen, but it wouldn't last long. So the third time I went back to see if maybe I'm missing something... and I gave it a longer listen. I got to the chanting and then laughed my ass off. It was pure. It was natural. It was funny. Having heard what I missed, I never had to go back.

 

[Pete Effamy]

The thing is, hearing isn’t static, it changes over time as your musicianship/musical understanding advances. I was handed a difficult piece of music to learn last week that I spent at least 3 days feeling like was random notes and time values. I honestly thought it would never sound like melody to me. I thought it was complicated and overly cerebral, joyless.

But then after a few days something clicked and today I’m walking around singing it to myself like it’s the most natural, catchy tune. This is our brains organizing, arranging, understanding patterns etc. I can never go back to hearing it the way I did a week ago when it made no sense. In this way it’s just like language— something goes from being random sound to being ideas once you understand it.

That doesn’t explain why I liked The Rite straight off.

 

[Pete Effamy]

There was a time when I would go back to a recording I have of A Love Supreme. I'd give it a listen, but it wouldn't last long. So the third time I went back to see if maybe I'm missing something... and I gave it a longer listen. I got to the chanting and then laughed my ass off. It was pure. It was natural. It was funny. Having heard what I missed, I never had to go back.

That’s still out of context with my post.

 

[Grumps]

That’s still out of context with my post.

Yes. It's called a riff...

 

[Zasterz]

That doesn’t explain why I liked The Rite straight off.

Sure- at the time you encountered it, it made sense to you, that’s all. It’s actually not a difficult listen imo. Always reminded me a bit of that Peter and the Wolf record I had as a child.

 

[Pete Effamy]

Sure- at the time you encountered it, it made sense to you, that’s all. It’s actually not a difficult listen imo. Always reminded me a bit of that Peter and the Wolf record I had as a child.

I’d agree that it’s not a particularly hard listen as musicians ears go, and taking into account of what is out there, but for a youngster / naive listener I think it is. Prokofiev slinks about a bit but it doesn’t have the crunchiness of Stravinsky.

 

[Pete Thomas]

Yes. It's called a riff...

You could call it a hook. But at least nobody is claiming Coltrane to be a great vocalist. Otherwise we'd love to have heard his vocal rendition "Raindrops and roses and warm woollen mittens..."

Maybe what happened in the 60s (should have) stayed in the 60s. 😉

 

[Pete Effamy]

Yes. It's called a riff...

More like a raft, and floated on by

 

[Pete Thomas]

There was a time when I would go back to a recording I have of A Love Supreme. I

Odd that this absolutely seminal jazz work is very rarely called on jazz jam sessions. Did it not enter the jazz canon along with Blue Bossa?

 

[mrblackbat]

Has anyone tried the equivalent art exhibition of John Cage’s 4’33” ?
You pay £35 and get to look around a series of empty rooms.

“Challenges the mind / makes you stop and ponder…” - you know, all those justifications.

I think you actually have to wear a blindfold while you walk round those empty rooms….