The Ideal Jazz Performance

Reid · July-2nd-2003, 02:14 AM

When you listen to jazz (or music in general) what are you looking for? What, to you, are the qualities of great jazz (or music in general)?

Pete C · July-2nd-2003, 06:49 AM

This is too Platonic for me.

July-2nd-2003, 08:00 AM

I like different types of music for different reasons. My primary attachment to jazz is through a general love of "blues music" in the abstract. One quality that is particularly attractive to me in that domain is musical communication, communication in real time between musicians themselves, and between musicians and the public. I want to hear real stories, hopefully true individual ones that are not borrowed and would never be told again in exactly the same way at any other time.

blawless · July-2nd-2003, 11:08 AM

Damn, Reid! To me, this is the biggest jazz question of all time, the "Ur" question from which spring all the other contentious questions, like who has "chops," is it "authentic," is enjoyment merely subjective, who has the authority to move the music forward (as distinct from the administrators of the tradition industry keeping vigil by the corpse, and from the "outrageous" dadaists-come-lately whose "new" musical gestures will be cobwebby in a month--and everyone has their own favorites to pen up in these categories). To me, John has the last answer most people will need. It works for me. But also, I'm looking for a sense of humor and play with the tradition, with musical expectations, with sound and what it's supposed to do in your life. I remember an interview where Matthew Shipp called jazz "fuck-you music," and while I can go along with an idea of jazz as protest sound, or as challenging and expectation-shattering, that idea also seems way too vulgar and puerile and self-serious--it doesn't touch what to me is, or should be, the humane, exploratory, essentially experience-affirming quality of the music. But ask me again tomorrow!

Dr Dave · July-2nd-2003, 09:58 PM

I want to hear great charts, great chops, and great heart.

jazzfiend · July-2nd-2003, 10:43 PM

In other words, Jemeel Moondoc with a kickass rhythm section.

GoodSpeak · July-2nd-2003, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Reid
When you listen to jazz (or music in general) what are you looking for? What, to you, are the qualities of great jazz (or music in general)?

Swing.

It's got to swing.

Beyond that...I'm pretty much open to anything.

Reid · July-4th-2003, 04:29 AM

John said, "I want to hear real stories, hopefully true individual ones that are not borrowed and would never be told again in exactly the same way at any other time."

I think this is the big thing for me. I don't experience this in jazz so much these days.

On the other hand, if the composition is really appealing to me--usually, I love the melody--I can really enjoy the tune. So I guess I would say that I look for a good composition, but this applies to a lot of music, I guess.

Has your definition changed over time? I ask because I know mine has. In the past, great interaction and a hard swinging band would be enough to satisfy me, but now it's not enough to satisfy me.

Tanager · July-4th-2003, 05:23 AM

When I hear live music, I like to hear musicians push themselves - I want to hear them digging in, working hard, and taking chances. I want to hear them play without fear, as if the audience weren't even there perhaps.

jazzwriter · July-4th-2003, 11:07 AM

For me, as mentioned before, it is communication. I want to hear something I can say, "Yeah, I dig that because I FEEL that too!"

That is why it is important for me to hear a use of "jazz vocabulary". It gives a lifting off point, a place to depart from that lots of people can identify with. Not that I want to hear the same conversations over and over again (like family dinners). But a friendly, "Hey, how's it goin'?" that everybody can recognize is useful and enjoyable.

In jazz, I find most of these communications comical, but I don't think I can but into words why. Of course, a quote from a song in the middle of another is often funny, but again I can't describe why. Other music, such as classical for instance, offfers other viewpoints such as being more introspective or intellectual perhaps. Pop music offers communication into the not-so-intellectual side of life. And so on . . .

Bill Barton · July-6th-2003, 02:02 AM

To paraphrase something Henry Threadgill once said, I want to hear something that transforms me. I don't go to a concert to hear anything mundane or "nostalgic," regardless of style.

Reid · July-6th-2003, 02:30 AM

I hear what you're saying, and it seems like you would be disappointed more often than not.

What does a music have to do to transform you or move you?

July-6th-2003, 05:56 AM

Well, the topic of this thread is the "ideal jazz performance." For me, music can be extremely enjoyable without being an ideal performance. I enjoy most jazz concerts that I go to because I like jazz. I don't come to a concert with an expectation that it will be "ideal," even when I know that I will hear musicians who are capable of delivering it. When it happens, it happens. When it doesn't, I still usually have a good time.

Bill Barton · July-6th-2003, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Reid
I hear what you're saying, and it seems like you would be disappointed more often than not.

What does a music have to do to transform you or move you?

Yes, in many cases, disappointment is indeed in the cards. That's a really difficult question, Reid, and the answer is slippery when one tries to put it into words, which always seem to get in the way.

"What does a music have to do to transform you or move you?"

I would say that emotional commitment and a strong connection with an undefinable spirituality by the musician or musicians lies at the core of the experience. Technical expertise is usually beside the point, although in combination with the preceding attributes, a true virtuoso on his or her instrument can really reach inside your head and heart and soul.

Two examples:

Many years ago I walked away from an old time fiddlers' convention outdoor bandshell performance like I was floating on air, and it was days before the high wore off. The music was ragged, undisciplined and frequently wildly out of key. Why did I have that reaction? Was it simply nostalgia for a kinder, gentler time or something more? I'd wager it was something more. It was real, it was immediate, there was no artifice or posturing or show-biz schtick involved; it was musical communication at its most naked and unassuming. Sheer joy in playing and willingness to take chances rank high in my book in terms of performances that reach this level. If you're afraid of sounding "bad" you seldom will sound "great."

Another performance that reached this level for me was the much-anticipated solo set by Cecil Taylor at Victoriaville documented on the 3-CD Complicité release on Victo. In this case, we're talking about a musician with scarily formidable technique who pours out so much information/sound/music/energy with such incessant drive that it would be impossible - at least for me - to appreciate him on a purely intellectual level. He reaches me on a visceral level not that far removed from the raggedy old fiddlers. There's no coasting, no taking the easy way out, no treading water waiting for inspiration to strike.

The calculated, controlled, carefully measured out ambiance of much contemporary "jazz" is the antithesis of this kind of an experience, and that's why a great deal of the music I hear fails to reach me on a deeper level. It's as if the stuff is plotted out on a bar-graph to approximate the effect of Blakey's Jazz Messengers, Miles Davis's 1960s bands or even Albert Ayler. The neo-cons have no lock on this; a great deal of free improv I've heard over the past few years is fully as guilty of this formulaic approach (just different formulas.)

Recently, free improv at its best has reached this plateau more consistently than any other "style" or "form" for me.

Reid · July-8th-2003, 02:12 PM

John said, "For me, music can be extremely enjoyable without being an ideal performance. "

I guess, for me, this is no longer true. Or when I asked for what makes up the ideal jazz performance, I guess I wanted to know what are the elements that must be present in order for you to really enjoy the music.

Getting back to what Bill said about music transforming the listener. I guess, that is the ideal (the ultimate) kind of performance. And, no, I don't have to have that to enjoy the music.

So, what needs to be there for you to enjoy the music?

Lately for me, I think it comes down the composition or song (and perhaps the arrangement). The music may not be super moving, innovative or super original, but if I really like the song--usually, that means that the melody is catchy and appealing to me--I can really enjoy the music.

I don't think I would enjoy jazz based on the interplay between the musicians, the swing (or groove) or the solos--unless they're really exceptional--to the point where I'm either transformed or I feel like I'm hearing something new and exciting.

If I don't like the composition, the other elements of the music have to be exceptional to enjoy the performance. I guess, the ideal performance would be exceptional in all the aspects I mentioned above (great song, solos, interplay, swing, and having a deeply moving effect).