Playing the saxophone How do you justify jazz?

[Pete Effamy]

I asked google for a few examples of music criticism from the past. I only picked pieces or composers that are no longer suspicious of pushing the boarders from today's perspective.

Ludwig Spohr about Beethovens 9th final movement: "so ugly, in such bad taste, and in the conception of Schiller's Ode so cheap that I cannot even now understand how such a genius as Beethoven could write it down."

Eduard Hanslick on Tchaikovsky's violin concerto: "the violin is no longer played; it is tugged about, torn, beaten black and blue. ...(his) concerto brings to us for the first time the horrid idea that there may be music that stinks in the ear."

Chopin about Schumann's Carnaval: "...not music at all."

Clara Schumann about Liszt's sonata: "truly appalling, and even worse that I have to thank him for it."

Gustav Engel on Liszt's sonata: “The structure rests on harmonic and rhythmic effusions that have not the slightest connection with beauty. Even the first theme must be dismissed as completely inartistic. Admittedly, what we get during the development is yet worse.”

Eduard Hanslick on the same piece: “Here all criticism, all discussion must cease. Anyone who has heard this and found it beautiful is beyond help.”

John Ruskin to John Brown: "Beethoven always sounds to me like the upsetting of bags of nails, with here and there an also dropped hammer."

I find it quite refreshing to read this and try to put myself in the critique's position. And in the end it seems that art has a magic anarchistic impetus that is driven by good art, bad art, fraud, excitement and anger. By cymbal incidents and sometimes unfortunately even assault.

If you ask me, the cardboard boxes are part of the game, part of a bigger picture, as is the anger and indignation about them. Will the cardboard boxes survive over time? Probably not, although I am not sure if I'd bet. But the fact, that art CAN do this and still be art (and at the same time be challenged to not be art) is what art is all about. When we look at the fruits of an era, we usually don't see the bad art and mediocre art of the era that set the stage for something outstanding to be created.

As interesting as it is comparing critiques from different times I can’t see a correlation between your examples of what is being critiqued.

We can only compare what was around at any one time, but the boxes / whitewashed wall can’t be compared to Classical, Romantic or Post Romantic pieces of music.

They can be compared with 4’33” , and maybe Wozzeck (maybe) or 12-tone serialism etc. They’re too extreme.

The boxes: well -made and of good quality cardboard with nice clear printing on the side. It’s true also that this artwork is by no means original and is merely a facsimile of many cases of post-Xmas trash etc

 

[Targa]

I’ve put a great deal of time and effort into it, choosing the best position both aesthetically and for efficiency, having sourced the materials I designed and created the construction and then selected the contents which are carefully and effectively arranged.
So from opinions expressed here I declare it to be a work of art not simply a compost heap.

 

[Zasterz]

Because that is not the words that have appeared in this thread several times. I don’t have a problem with that, but as soon as anyone says (a subjective thing) IS this; then someone can just as well say that it isn’t.

If a curator is basically saying - here’s my collection this autumn, come down, hope you enjoy it as I do - then that’s an entirely different thing. Even “this is my take on art”.

I didn’t understand what you meant by the bolded part (which words are which words?)

As for curation, it’s a job like any other. And any particular museum/gallery is just a business/venue. If I know a certain restaurant always puts roasted red pepper in everything, I probably don’t go there because I expect it’ll be hard to find something I like on the menu. It doesn’t make me feel like I have to somehow contradict the chef, the restaurant or its patrons.

 

[r. giuseppe]

As interesting as it is comparing critiques from different times I can’t see a correlation between your examples of what is being critiqued.

We can only compare what was around at any one time, but the boxes / whitewashed wall can’t be compared to Classical, Romantic or Post Romantic pieces of music.

They can be compared with 4’33” , and maybe Wozzeck (maybe) or 12-tone serialism etc. They’re too extreme.

The boxes: well -made and of good quality cardboard with nice clear printing on the side. It’s true also that this artwork is by no means original and is merely a facsimile of many cases of post-Xmas trash etc

It is not my point to compare the cardboard boxes to 4'33" (which BTW I believe is a great piece of art). That is too obvious - what would be the point? If you dismiss one, you likely won't really approve of the other.

On purpose, I didn't pick out critiques about Duchamp, Beuys, Hirst, Cage, Schönberg or even Debussy, Ravel, Monet. They all pushed borders and we can still feel why they upset some and left others confused (with the latter three already challenging our imagination, why their work should have been considered outrageous).

My point was to show that the criticism sounded similar decades ago - for pieces of art we now consider classics and cannot really imagine, why anyone would have thought they crossed a line. Do you think any of the critics I posted would hold on to their wording if we could bring them to the present with a time machine and let them visit concerts and museums for a year or two? I don't think so. It's all a matter of perspective.

To use wording from this thread: I don't like the cardboard boxes, I wouldn't go to the exhibit, I can't see the artistic element in there that justifies their display, I wouldn't advise anyone to invest in this kind of art - but I'm willing to fight for art being allowed to include this (and even "worse" stuff).

 

[r. giuseppe]

I’ve put a great deal of time and effort into it, choosing the best position both aesthetically and for efficiency, having sourced the materials I designed and created the construction and then selected the contents which are carefully and effectively arranged.
So from opinions expressed here I declare it to be a work of art not simply a compost heap.

Why not...
If you get someone transfer it to Tate Modern, it might work. 😉

 

[Pete Effamy]

I wouldn't advise anyone to invest in this kind of art

This is the crux - those extreme examples in my book, are not art.

 

[Pete Effamy]

Why not...
If you get someone transfer it to Tate Modern, it might work. 😉

And therein lies the problem.

When is a piece of art not a piece of art ?

Or should it be;

Where is a piece of art not a piece of art ?

 

[r. giuseppe]

This is the crux - those extreme examples in my book, are not art.

Which, as pointed out, I kind of understand very well. I just disagree about the label. And I think this is not just semantics. From a historical or philosophical viewpoint, the label that something is art should be free as a consequence of art being free.
There have been many times and there are many places where art is not free. I think it is important to step back and look at this too. Here in Germany, less than 100 years ago about 75% of the art I "consume" would have made me suspicious or got me into serious trouble. That's crazy. Of course that is not my sole argument. It's only part of the bigger picture.

When is a piece of art not a piece of art ?

Or should it be;

Where is a piece of art not a piece of art ?

That's a nice one! And a good place to start a different discussion. I think that everyday objects are more likely to appear as art if displaced from their normal environment. But are they still art in a different place? Good question.
The sound of a train is certainly more art in a concert hall than in a tunnel.
To me this doesn't really put the freedom of art into question.

 

[Vlad]

I reckon my bacon sarnie this morning was a work of art, presumably as I scoffed it pronto it counts as 'performance art'...

 

[Pete Effamy]

The sound of a train is certainly more art in a concert hall than in a tunnel.

Mmmm, I think in a concert hall the sound of a train is probably just depicting the sound of a train to help the music depict that train further than the notes.

The problem with

Where is art not art ?

Is that by some people’s definition anything can be art, but only if said so by “someone knowing”.

Hence,

my garage has a lot of junk; or

The junk in my garage was exhibited in the Tate and is now art.

 

[Pete Effamy]

I reckon my bacon sarnie this morning was a work of art, presumably as I scoffed it pronto it counts as 'performance art'...

Thing is; it could be by all accounts.

 

[r. giuseppe]

The junk in my garage was exhibited in the Tate and is now art.

I'd say the junk in your garage might qualify as art if you say so. It might not be good art though. But if you manage to get it exhibited in the Tate it's either not that bad or you are a clever guy.

 

[Pete Effamy]

I'd say the junk in your garage might qualify as art if you say so. It might not be good art though. But if you manage to get it exhibited in the Tate it's either not that bad or you are a clever guy.

Yeah that’s all open to conjecture! Yes, good and bad is another thing. Subjective too of course.

 

[Vlad]

Thing is; it could be by all accounts.

Damn..should've filmed it....

 

[Targa]

I reckon my bacon sarnie this morning was a work of art, presumably as I scoffed it pronto it counts as 'performance art'...

Entitled ‘Ce n'est pas un cochon mort’.

 

[jazzdoh]

I reckon my bacon sarnie this morning was a work of art, presumably as I scoffed it pronto it counts as 'performance art'...

Yes but what comes out at the end if done in the bath tub might well be art, best not film it though.

 

[Vlad]

best not film it though.

That could be termed a bit, erm ''specialist interest''

 

[TobyB]

Jazz isn't for me.
There are tons of songs I like that are called 'jazz' but
most of the others in the 'jazz section' just don't do it for me.

I figure that means I don't like jazz.

Likewise, what used to be called 'Country' was mostly a wasteland.
Except for a bunch of songs I liked.

Oh, yeah, hated rap. Except for... the good bits. Still can't find my wallet...

so, uh, yeah- I figure there's music I like,
music I appreciate for what it is,
and then there's the rest of it.

t
doesn't do musicals almost ever at all. Unless you're paying him.

 

[Dr G]

Jazz isn't for me.
There are tons of songs I like that are called 'jazz' but
most of the others in the 'jazz section' just don't do it for me.

I figure that means I don't like jazz.

Likewise, what used to be called 'Country' was mostly a wasteland.
Except for a bunch of songs I liked.

Oh, yeah, hated rap. Except for... the good bits. Still can't find my wallet...

so, uh, yeah- I figure there's music I like,
music I appreciate for what it is,
and then there's the rest of it.

By your examples above “most of the others in the ‘jazz section’ just don’t do it for me” ergo “I figure that means I don’t like jazz. Given that there’s music that you don’t like, then you must not like music.

t
doesn't do musicals almost ever at all. Unless you're paying him.

Well T is missing out regarding Beetlejuice (the musical). I just saw the broadway cast show this week and was blown away. Highly recommended show.

 

[JSL]

I've known so many jazz players who think dismiss blues as easy, and yet without being able to play blues convincingly. They get the harmony yet somehow miss out on the feel and intonation. Somehow unable to leave the jazz licks and patterns at home.

Very true, especially if they dismiss blues as 'easy'. To me, that means they don't fully understand the blues, including 'jazz blues'. I don't totally separate jazz & blues because the blues is an essential component of jazz. But the blues is very deep and there are many different blues styles, ranging from basic 'country blues' to jump blues, blues rock, Chicago blues, blues funk, etc., and yes, jazz blues. So, what and how you play depends a lot on the specific blues genre.

You have to play what is appropriate to the style. You won't play in the same way over a jump tune like "Caldonia" as you would over "Rock Me Baby" or a slow blues like "The Thrill is Gone". And when playing something like "Tenor Madness" or "Blue Monk" you could introduce some bebop lines. Those are all examples of the blues, with much the same changes (the jazz versions could have more substitute chords or 'advanced' harmony), but they each require a a specific style of playing. And even with jazz blues tunes, it's important to get that blues sound & feel in there!

I've been working on a lot of bebop lines, IIIm-VI7-IIm-V7 phrases, etc. because I like how they sound, using chromaticism, enclosures, etc. Did I mention I like jazz in all its forms and don't need to justify that? However, when playing the more 'down home' blues at a 'blues jam' or with a blues band playing more in the typical electric guitar or funky blues styles, those bebop lines don't come out in my solos. They just don't fit there. I can sometimes use them to an extent in a jump blues with a II-V turnaround and swing feel, or on the occasion when a jazzy blues tune is called. It's all a matter of playing what fits the style.