Playing the saxophone How do you justify jazz?

[Pete Effamy]

Some time back a posted this little snippet by David Bruce which, I think, illustrated and informed my, personal, answer to that.

Post in thread 'Blues and jazz similarities …Is Jazz more like improvising?' Playing the saxophone - Blues and jazz similarities …Is Jazz more like improvising?

Also, this video brings out similar ideas.

View: https://youtu.be/I0hMNrxYjPQ

Ok, but I don’t think it’s a fair comparison between going to an exhibition say, at the Tate and and going to a classical music concert.

For one, an art gallery is probably open between 10am to 10pm. Or so. You can talk whenever you like while moving around the exhibition, and if one room is not to your liking you can move to the next.

A concert starts at 7.30pm. Sit down. Be quiet. For 60 minutes listen, and then you get 20 minutes off for good behaviour and then you have to sit still in silence again. Finally, it ends. It’s 9.45pm and you have to dash for your last train that (insert British railway company) has probably cancelled…

The Ligetti vocal piece is by no means a really challenging listen. And whilst I do agree that a fair amount of classical music got embroiled in its own version of “modern art” , there is so much more than a “handful “ of works that are accessible within the last 120 years.

The Planets
Works by Shostakovich, Copland, V Williams, Elgar, Faure, Saint-Saens, Delius, Sibelius, Nielsen, Glazunov, R Strauss, Rachmaninov, Satie, Ravel……

 

[mizmar]

Seriously? A concert and an art exhibition have different opening times so can't be compared? Is an evening opening of the Tate more like a concert? Or a lunchtime at the Wigmore Hall more like an art exhibition? Seriously?

You can't really mosh in a classical concert hall - but a thrash metal.gig and a Mozart performance are both concerts. They have musicians on a stage, playing instruments etc. with an audience who've paid to get in. Or?
... Well, yeah, I certainly have mates who don't consider classical a real concert because of the lack of violent dancing.

Ok, but I don’t think it’s a fair comparison between going to an exhibition say, at the Tate and and going to a classical music concert.

I think it is a good comparison despite the differences. They are obviously different art forms; work and are experienced differently. But they are both considered art forms and whatever lumps them together into that grouping is what matters.

And, I'd suggest, every work of art stands in relation to; the society, history, institution, individuals etc. it's created by and experienced by.

 

[Pete Effamy]

Seriously? A concert and an art exhibition have different opening times so can't be compared? Is an evening opening of the Tate more like a concert? Or a lunchtime at the Wigmore Hall more like an art exhibition? Seriously?

Seriously, because of all the reasons I gave.

 

[Pete Effamy]

Seriously, because of all the reasons I gave.

Oh, and art galleries are often free.

 

[mizmar]

Seriously, because of all the reasons I gave.

Well, I've been to concerts and exhibitions where you can buy cheep, sour wine from a box. So the comparisons are obvious. Equally seriously

 

[mizmar]

Oh, and art galleries are often free.

https://www.wigmore-hall.org.uk/whats-on/202602201500

Tickets
Free

 

[Pete Effamy]

Well, I've been to concerts and exhibitions where you can buy cheep, sour wine from a box. So the comparisons are obvious. Equally seriously

What, free vs £35+;
Any time of the day pop-in vs 7.30 - 9.45pm;
Walk, stand, sit, chat vs sit, quiet

 

[Pete Effamy]

https://www.wigmore-hall.org.uk/whats-on/202602201500

Tickets
Free

Lunchtime concerts are not the world premieres talked about in your own video posted.

 

[mizmar]

Lunchtime concerts are not the world premieres talked about in your own video posted.

Often isn't always.

Still. I've learned something. The quality and nature of an artistic work is all about opening times, entry costs and refreshments available. Right. Got it.

 

[Pete Effamy]

Often isn't always.

Still. I've learned something. The quality and nature of an artistic work is all about opening times, entry costs and refreshments available. Right. Got it.

You got something.

 

[mizmar]

You got something.

Oh yes.
I normally drink tap water while practicing. I'm hoping that shifting to upmarket mineral water will improve my artistry.
Thanks for the insight

 

[turf3]

Yes I struggle with this, because who says so ?

I have Monty Python in my head with John Cleese saying “no it isn’t “.

LIke I said, it does make it art; but it doesn't necessarily make it good art.

 

[turf3]

Fantastic that everyone in the world has just the impression you say they do.
That simplifies "art" tremendously

If your intent is to try to get me to promulgate a theory of aesthetics, I'm going to have to respectfully decline.

 

[mizmar]

If your intent is to try to get me to promulgate a theory of aesthetics, I'm going to have to respectfully decline.

I wasn't.

Look. There's a thread that runs through art, music, literature, science, most disciplines really; which is about challenging assumptions. It's not the only thing, obviously. It's always been around, I'd guess, but became particularly prevalent in, what? Late medieval times? Modernity? Anyway, it just is a thing.
And the thing about changing assumptions is - almost always - while some find it stimulating, amusing, thrilling even; others find it anywhere from boring to viscerally repugnant... And very often it's folks who are deeply invested in some activity who get most annoyed or push back hardest.
The boxes in the Guggenheim, the plinky-plonky music, etc. are, I've argued, are just that: challenging assumptions right at the edge. Other people challenge assumptions closer to the center - and in music, they're the people history is constructed around... Ya Bachs, Beethovens, Birds etc. stuff that immediately or eventually accepted and which, often, shows up "the establishment" as being stuffy.

Folks who are stomping their feet and making dogmatic judgements about the boxes or plinky-plonky music are just part of that history. It's the pushback that lets the artist know it's working.

 

[turf3]

I wasn't.

Look. There's a thread that runs through art, music, literature, science, most disciplines really; which is about challenging assumptions. It's not the only thing, obviously. It's always been around, I'd guess, but became particularly prevalent in, what? Late medieval times? Modernity? Anyway, it just is a thing.
And the thing about changing assumptions is - almost always - while some find it stimulating, amusing, thrilling even; others find it anywhere from boring to viscerally repugnant... And very often it's folks who are deeply invested in some activity who get most annoyed or push back hardest.
The boxes in the Guggenheim, the plinky-plonky music, etc. are, I've argued, are just that: challenging assumptions right at the edge. Other people challenge assumptions closer to the center - and in music, they're the people history is constructed around... Ya Bachs, Beethovens, Birds etc. stuff that immediately or eventually accepted and which, often, shows up "the establishment" as being stuffy.

Folks who are stomping their feet and making dogmatic judgements about the boxes or plinky-plonky music are just part of that history. It's the pushback that lets the artist know it's working.

Yes, we all know about all that. My point is that "good art" - however one chooses to believe "goodness" gets defined - is not identical with "transgressive - push at boundaries" art. There is bad art that pushes at boundaries; there is bad art that does not (Thomas Kinkade, painter of light, registered trademark). There is good art that pushes at boundaries, and there is good art that does not.

My point is that when everything one does is aimed at "pushing the envelope" - that does NOT, in itself, mean the results will be GOOD.

 

[mizmar]

Yes, we all know about all that.

That's not obvious...

My point is that when everything one does is aimed at "pushing the envelope" - that does NOT, in itself, mean the results will be GOOD

Obviously... So long as GOOD is qualified by "for everyone" or "for many people" or "for the gatekeepers" etc. But "to the viewer." or "to the listener" requires a universal theory of aesthetics that actually denies, my point above, that a GOOD thing that pushes the envelope will be considered VERY BAD to some people.

 

[turf3]

That's not obvious...


Obviously... So long as GOOD is qualified by "for everyone" or "for many people" or "for the gatekeepers" etc. But "to the viewer." or "to the listener" requires a universal theory of aesthetics that actually denies, my point above, that a GOOD thing that pushes the envelope will be considered VERY BAD to some people.

I'd say that it would be pretty obvious that any educated person, here in 2026, 114 years after "Nude Descending a Staircase", and 155 years after Vincent Van Gogh's most productive period, is aware of the impetus in modern art toward pushing the envelope.

Whne I use "to the viewer" or "to the listener" I don't mean "to EVERY viewer". Actually, I"m going to avoid even attempting to define "viewer" - if we say "majority" then we're implying that quality in art depends on a poll; if we say "the educated viewer" then we're making an argument to authority.

This touches on the key issue in art for a long time - how do we distinguish good from bad, in a world where every single audience member comes to the piece of art with his own taste and prejudices and experience?

But if we agree to set aside the impossible goal of creating a theory of aesthetics that will objectively allow us to separate the sheep from the goats, I will say that at least for ME - a reasonably well educated person with considerable experience as a viewer of modern visual art, it seems to me that much of the stuff that pushes the envelope, or is transgressive in one way or another, has already been done to death, and it's not transgressive or edgy any more, and it comes across to me very much as the artist trying too hard to tread the ground already trodden so thoroughly.

 

[mizmar]

It seems to me that much of the stuff that pushes the envelope, or is transgressive in one way or another, has already been done to death, and it's not transgressive or edgy any more, and it comes across to me very much as the artist trying too hard to tread the ground already trodden so thoroughly

That I would agree with, more or less.
I'm always hopeful that someone'll come along and shake things up... But one should be careful what one wishes for

 

[JayeNM]

There is a major problem with this line of reasoning though, which is that objects don't have value. It should be obvious that any value an object has is put on it by the observer. In my opinion attempting to get around this by appealing to authority doesn't work either, but of course that has been the subject of thousands of years of debate so I won't try to settle that matter. 😛

??? Objects do not have..."value" ? What defines "Value" ?????

Some great art installations can be described as "collections of objects", or compositions of objects. All the artist did was see a potential in collecting and assembling them in that way.

Do those, too have no value by virtue of them being objects ?

Do "sounds", on the other hand, have "value" ??? Can sounds, even those emanating from a musical instrument, NOT have value as well ?

Not appealing to any authority either, nor claiming any at all...just sharing my own experiences from a life in the visual arts and music - these conversations have been going on for over a century, easy ; my whole purpose of continuing this conversation is quite simple:

You seem to be dismissive of certain art installations,or 'pieces' claiming they show no artistry or talent, but are rather just cons.

Some music fans would say that about Ornette, or Sonny Sharrock, or the World Saxophone Quartet, or certain iterations of Miles Davis' groups, particularly 70's ones....or insert any other "outside" or avante-garde musician/group...as well.

I am not gonna defend an empty room with painted walls, or a pile of trash on the curb. But something like an unmade bed might be either a scam, or, if it was part of the context of a larger show, or if the viewer had some knowledge of the artist's background and themes....not.

 

[JayeNM]

Whitewashed wall, and the other examples I gave. The bloody boxes. I probably paid to go into the Guggenheim (paid or free?) and that should not have been part of it. No skill attached. No insight. Crap. I haven’t mentioned any others.

I gotcha there, yes....LIke music, there are personalities who simply take advantage and create rationales...