tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35429900.post3392776489140947170..comments2023-04-16T13:53:57.295+00:00Comments on improvising guitar: the audience vs. keithy-poo jarrettthe improvising guitaristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07517613086214719180noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35429900.post-65496123826273668032007-08-20T05:28:00.000+00:002007-08-20T05:28:00.000+00:00Hi- a day late and a dollar short..."The Beast" re...Hi- a day late and a dollar short..."The Beast" refers to Betty Carter.<BR/><BR/>PBPeter Breslinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15466530226652452872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35429900.post-2391316653131508762007-08-14T07:27:00.000+00:002007-08-14T07:27:00.000+00:00Hey again peeps:Very interesting to watch this dis...Hey again peeps:<BR/><BR/>Very interesting to watch this discussion evolve (both here and elsewhere in the blogosphere). I wonder why this latest outburst touched off such a nerve? (Cuz as a lot of people are pointing out, antagonizing the audience is nothing new in Jarrett-land.)<BR/><BR/>On the question of class: jinx is right, of course, that one can be impoverished and still technically be a member of the aristocracy. (This is more of an observable phenomenon in Europe, I would guess.) But if we want to use "class" as a metaphor to describe the power dynamic between an artist and his/her audience, then I think the question of money is actually pretty relevant, because money and power are closely related most of the time.<BR/><BR/>(To put this a slightly different way: even the "true" blue-blooded aristocratic families were "nouveau rich" at some point a long long time ago.)<BR/><BR/>I can imagine that there might have been some folks at the festival in question who might have been incensed that a lowly musician would have dared to confront them in this way. But I suspect many more of the audience members were simply flummoxed. <BR/><BR/>To push the genius thing a little further, I think part of what's going on here is a wrangling over the question of what music is, and what it's <I>for.</I> Jarrett seems to be focusing on it as a precious artifact -- and I mean "precious" in every sense (it's valuable and scarce aesthetically, yes, but it's also pretentious, and it's also so fragile that a single lousy flash bulb can destroy it). The audience, on the other hand, may have been after something a little more robust.Andrew Durkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11471871547839907538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35429900.post-20517429803791084722007-08-13T22:00:00.000+00:002007-08-13T22:00:00.000+00:00I think you’ve hit it, jinx: the way you frame the...I think you’ve hit it, jinx: the way you frame these ideas makes a lot of sense to me.<BR/>There, for example, is a <I>relationship</I> between gender / race / sexuality and privilege, but you can’t directly infer one from the other. In a similar way there’s a relationship between class and economics, but one doesn’t map directly onto the other. Thus “Lord such-and-such” can continue to <I>perform</I> aristocracy while economically doing worse financially than the local used car salesman, and every president since Nixon can assume ‘middle America’ despite their socio-economic status.<BR/>In this context, it doesn’t matter whether the audience’s reaction to Jarrett is appropriate given Jarrett’s ‘real-world wealth’, they were willing to interact with Jarret on the grounds that he was <I>supposed</I> (morally bound?) to be the servant.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for writing!<BR/><BR/>S, tigthe improvising guitaristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07517613086214719180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35429900.post-88389124414067868012007-08-13T21:44:00.000+00:002007-08-13T21:44:00.000+00:00Okay, PB, I give up: who is “The Beast”?tigOkay, PB, I give up: who is “The Beast”?<BR/><BR/>tigthe improvising guitaristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07517613086214719180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35429900.post-15463499258786899122007-08-11T20:50:00.000+00:002007-08-11T20:50:00.000+00:00Hey- Taylor uses the -ypoo suffix rather liberally...Hey- Taylor uses the -ypoo suffix rather liberally. Hanging out with him a few years ago after a ripping trio show with Albey Balgochian and Jackson Krall in Albuquerque, Mr. Taylor also referred to Ornette as "Ornette-y poo." Then there was "The Mean Devil," "The Beast," "The Professor" and a few other nicknames....folks might be able to guess who the referents are.<BR/><BR/>as for the questions raised here, I will reread and ponder. Great stuff as always.<BR/><BR/>PBPeter Breslinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15466530226652452872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35429900.post-47075300907243821162007-08-09T16:24:00.000+00:002007-08-09T16:24:00.000+00:00tig in response to howsthatsound: it's probably a ...tig in response to howsthatsound: it's probably a good job kj wasn't your idol.<BR/><BR/>My knowledge of Beethoven isn't as good as it should be, but a lot of the genius mythology stuff is created after a composer's existence - it doesn't necessarily reflect the reception of the composer at the time she or he lived. So, Josquin was turned into a genius, and at a conference session today I heard of a late 19th century Spanish musicologist who made some regular guy into a 'genius' - many hundreds of years after he'd died an obscure nobody. That is, as Andrew acknowledges, genius is a construct. It doesn't actually exist.<BR/><BR/>Call me stubborn, but I'm not so quick to let go of my class analysis. I suppose it depends where you come from, but in my home country class doesn't depend on how much you earn. If you're a prole and you win millions on the lottery, you're just a millionaire prole. (Wasn't there a Harry Enfield sketch of Wayne and Waynetta after winning the lottery? A butler collected their pizza delivery, and they had gold plated 'thrones' (euphemism) in front of the telly.) If you're the first son of Lord such-and-such, your family might be absolutely broke, but you're still a member of the upper classes, the aristocracy. Under those circumstances, KJ is a very wealthy, very successful musician - but he's still 'just' a musician. <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure celebrities are exactly the new aristocracy in quite the way you suggest: sure, they mingle, they might be close friends (Elton John & Diana Spencer), but are they family?<BR/><BR/>I certainly need to think about that some more.jinxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13836878944891048918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35429900.post-76708853671020627802007-08-08T23:45:00.000+00:002007-08-08T23:45:00.000+00:00howsthatsound,I admire your ability to keep the ar...howsthatsound,<BR/><BR/>I admire your ability to keep the artist and art separate, but I, for one, am, for better or worse (again, for worse more than better), embedded in this culture that consumes art as autobiography (the birthplace of the ‘tortured genius’). It’s all fiction of course, but I find that I do care if my <I>idols</I> (saints on a pedestal) are assholes… unfortunately.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the writing.<BR/><BR/>S, tigthe improvising guitaristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07517613086214719180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35429900.post-11715715749591487002007-08-08T23:41:00.000+00:002007-08-08T23:41:00.000+00:00Hey Andrew, thanks for commenting: all your points...Hey Andrew, thanks for commenting: all your points are well taken.<BR/><BR/>I agree that we’re stuck with, for better or worse (worse more than better), the Romantic archetype of the artist as ‘tortured genius’. Your’re also right to point out that it’d be silly of me to position Keithy-poo Jarrett as anything less than an affluent member of the jazz elite (Mwanji <A HREF="http://be-jazz.blogspot.com/2007/08/im-getting-out-of-this-goddamned-city.html" REL="nofollow">makes a similar point</A>), and I’d find a reading of this situation with Jarrett as the petulant Beethovenian figure compelling (ironically, none of the major players in this drama really attempt to pull Jarrett down from ‘genius’ status).<BR/>And, ask me for my opinion, I’d say Jarrett’s being silly….<BR/>I was also probably being unfair in my portrayal of Biro’s letter, but the letter was, at the very least, <I>prescriptive</I>, and that’s interesting. The argument between Jarrett and Biro’s audience isn’t so much against the root problem of the artist-audience model (which I think is what you’re getting at), it’s an argument over who wields (and thus can abuse) power, and who has rights (and can claim victimhood): Jarrett or the audience….<BR/><BR/>…but I’m <I>trying</I> to get at something parallel to all this.<BR/><BR/>Some questions: how come <I>some</I> artists get away with ‘antisocial’ behavior? What’s so different about The Keith Jarrett Incident? Context? Certain forms of insult are acceptable? Are certain artists sanctioned?<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for reading, and thanks for keeping me from slacking in thinking :-)<BR/><BR/>S, tigthe improvising guitaristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07517613086214719180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35429900.post-79458086509170135992007-08-08T20:50:00.000+00:002007-08-08T20:50:00.000+00:00maybe i'm desensitized from going to grungier show...maybe i'm desensitized from going to grungier shows in grungier places. but if i was there and a fan of jarrett i'd be laughing, not crying.<BR/><BR/>are jazz folks always this sensitive?<BR/><BR/>as for me, i keep my appreciation artist and art separate. i could care less if my idols are assholes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35429900.post-18272179158755846112007-08-08T19:29:00.000+00:002007-08-08T19:29:00.000+00:00Nice analysis. I agree that the trangressiveness o...Nice analysis. <BR/><BR/>I agree that the trangressiveness of it is the crux. I'm not sure I agree, though, that that transgressiveness can be explained by the model of "the audience embod[ying] the ruling class; the performers, their servants." And I doubt "Jarrett’s behavior [is] being perceived by those offended as a revolt by the servant class."<BR/><BR/>For one thing, Biro's letter actually seems pretty mild to me. Yeah, he's pissed, but he's measured in his anger, and he makes sure to remind us that he thinks Jarrett is top notch. (Maybe that bit sticks out for me b/c I've never been a particularly big Jarrett fan.) The letter comes across as more of an intervention than a scolding.<BR/><BR/>For another, at this point in his career, Jarrett probably has more money than anybody in that particular audience. I don't know for sure, of course, but what about this: at the very least, he's a jazz celebrity (and celebrities are the new aristocracy, as Elton John has demonstrated): he's widely recognized as an "icon" of the jazz scene -- he has "arrived," and I suspect his position in jazz history can't be revoked, certainly not by a festival audience. (Plus I bet he had a pretty sweet green room.) The "class war" model would, I think, be much more applicable if the artist in question were someone up-and-coming, someone still struggling for the audience's "approval." (And actually, from my point of view, the real class issues here can be found in the discrepancy between those who could get in to that festival (club) -- either as performers or audience members -- and those who are, year after year, left out.)<BR/><BR/>I dunno. I guess I'm interested in this as a psychological and cultural thing (not that those things can be completely separated from class) -- sort of along the lines of what your teacher MET was saying. My theory: we've had this figure of the "tortured genius" floating around in our culture for centuries now. It has been built up to the point where it's instantly recognizeable, even to folks who aren't particularly interested in the arts. Everyone knows Beethoven was a splenetic, difficult madman, blah blah blah. Is it possible that Jarrett, because of insecurity or whatever, is simply putting on a persona here, performing the genius character? <BR/><BR/>His complaints just seem so forced and trivial and transparent and predictable to me, and I think the audience was probably smart enough to recognize that. I suspect that if I had been in that audience, I would probably have been annoyed too (after I had finished laughing, of course), but not because Jarrett was being uppity. I would probably have been annoyed because he was being so goddammed unimaginative and mediocre in his eccentricity.<BR/><BR/>But who knows...Andrew Durkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11471871547839907538noreply@blogger.com