The saviors of jazz may be hot new singers, not diehards with saxes

[Lois Gilbert]

Time to Stop Sneering

The saviors of jazz may be hot new singers, not diehards with saxes

London Times, November 12, 2006

There is a story about Miles Davis that tells you something about the uneasy
relationship between musicians and singers. Many years ago, as Lorraine
Gordon, co-owner of that Manhattan landmark the Village Vanguard, recalls in
her memoirs, Davis was in the middle of a residency when Gordon's husband,
Max, asked if he would accompany a promising new vocalist. Davis, brusque as ever, turned him down flat. "I don't play behind no girl singers," he
rasped. And that was that. The young woman -- whose name was Barbra
Streisand -- was left to search for other paths to glory.

In fact, Davis did make a point of championing the elegant singer-pianist
Shirley Horn. But, by and large, the division he evokes, between
serious-minded instrumentalists and decorative vocalists, still holds firm.
Jazz history is sold as a succession of towering soloists -- from Charlie
Parker to John Coltrane -- with most singers allotted the role of supplying
the fripperies for the 52nd Street equivalent of the tired businessman.
There are important exceptions to that broad-brush rule -- Billie Holiday
comes instantly to mind -- but the critical consensus has been that the
heavy lifting is done by the men with the horns and the pianos.

But is that really the case now? Coltrane, the last undisputed giant in the
instrumental field, has been dead for nearly 40 years. Since then, jazz has
stubbornly clung to its minority share of the listening public. Given the
dearth of radio airplay and its near invisibility on mainstream TV, it is
miraculous that the music has any public profile at all. Jazz musicians
rightly point the finger at our obsession with celebrity culture and X
Factor wannabes.

Yet what if the players themselves are partly to blame? What if they are
failing to reach out to the potential audience? Such questions are seldom
raised in public, which was why recent comments by the saxophonist Branford
Marsalis in The New York Times made such fascinating reading. A member of
America's most famous jazz family -- the trumpeter Wynton is his younger
brother -- Marsalis has led a curious dual career, blowing molten choruses
in select clubs while also jamming with Sting and leading the house band on
that late-night American institution The Tonight Show.

He has always had a reputation for speaking his mind, yet his remarks were
astonishingly frank: "Musicians are always talking about, 'Why isn't jazz
popular?'," he wrote. "But musicians today are completely devoid of
charisma. People never really liked the music in the first place. So now you
have musicians, who are proficient at playing instruments, and people sit
there, and it's just boring to them -- because they're trying to see
something or feel it."

Sad but, in many cases, all too true. Which is where singers enjoy an
advantage. While the instrumentalists chase ever more abstruse combinations
of chords, vocalists are left to build meaning out of that most basic
element -- words. Instead of seeing them as somehow second-class citizens,
we need to encourage them to become the new avant-garde.

Look around the popular-music scene and there is an undeniable hunger for
the virtues of grown-up songs. Which explains Michael Parkinson's emergence
as one of the important new tastemakers in jazz. "Will Parky play it on
Radio 2?" is the question bouncing around countless record-company offices.
The rise of Madeleine Peyroux, the American gamine with a gift for fusing
Lady Day phrases with sensual blues-jazz riffs, owes much to what you could
call the Parkinson effect. The broadcaster's gastropub, the Royal Oak, set
in the Berkshire countryside a few miles from his home, has become a kind of
home-counties answer to Ronnie Scott's, regularly playing host to hugely
promising performers, including Clare Teal and the gospel-inflected American
newcomer Lizz Wright.

Parkinson's endorsement is no guarantee of success: for instance, despite
all the airplay for the clean-cut American singer-pianist Peter Cincotti,
his last album achieved disappointing sales. A promising, if slightly
airbrushed talent, Cincotti had the misfortune to arrive on the scene at
roughly the same time as the more rumbustious Jamie Cullum. Most purists
loathe the young man from the West Country; much of his material, it has to
be said, is closer to pop than jazz. But, at his best, the mischievous
showman at least reminds us that, during its most productive years, jazz was
an integral part of the entertainment industry.

Parkinson's preferences reflect the tastes of the Saga generation, hence the
bias towards adept but anodyne entertainers such as the big-band pin-up
Michael Bublé, the Sinatra-style crooner Steve Tyrell and the technically
flawless Jane Monheit. But there are edgier performers out there. Gwyneth
Herbert and Lianne Carroll patrol the unmarked territory lying between pop
and jazz, while one of the best of the newcomers is Cormac Kenevey, a young
Irishman who bears the influence of Harry Connick Jr, yet possesses his own
brand of beatnik charisma -- as he proved during an imposing Soho club debut
earlier this year. His first album, This Is Living, was released on Candid,
the label that propelled Cullum into the limelight. The company's owner,
Alan Bates, a man with a shrewd eye, has also signed the mesmerising French
vocalist Mina Agossi, a kittenish nonconformist who has created her own
intelligent form of acoustic drum'n'bass.

Agossi demonstrates that it's possible to combine innovation and respect for
the tradition, as does that rowdy, self-styled "dyke" comedian turned bopper
Lea DeLaria. A DeLaria show is not for the faint-hearted: women sitting
close to the stage are in danger of being subjected to serious french
kissing. But beneath the burlesque exterior, there is an astute musical
mind. An improviser who cites Coltrane as her prime influence, DeLaria is a
long way from easy listening, yet on an album such as Double Standards, she
shows that it really is possible to turn Blondie's Call Me into an
out-and-out swinger.

A much cooler presence, Norway's Solveig Slettahjell has brought a pensive
Scandinavian aura to a repertoire that ranges from Tom Waits to Cole Porter
and John Hiatt. She plays the London Jazz Festival on Friday.

One of the biggest jazz acts in America, Cassandra Wilson, also appears at
the festival tomorrow. Wilson, though, has been treading water of late,
which is why I am much more excited about the arrival at Ronnie Scott's
later this month of that enigmatic, Chicago-based singer-pianist Patricia
Barber. While Diana Krall has been deservedly cleaning up on the romantic
front, Barber opts for much darker and more challenging material. (Gotcha,
perhaps her best song, is a fantasy about a cheated wife's thoughts of
revenge.) Barber's latest disc, Mythologies, is her most ambitious yet, a
song cycle inspired by Ovid's Metamorphoses. The notion sounds impossibly
pretentious; she and her band transform it into a funky, bluesy triumph.

Two other Americans are busily making nonsense of traditional categories.
Kurt Elling -- many critics' choice as the finest male singer around at the
moment -- blends poetry, urbane scat and laid-back standards. Meanwhile,
Curtis Stigers, a 1990s pop idol who has brilliantly reinvented himself in
the jazz-blues idiom, continues his mission to win over the more hidebound
reviewers.

A commercial background has always aroused the suspicion of the jazz police,
yet Stigers will, I suspect, win the battle in the long run.

None of this means that instrumentalists are redundant. Far from it. The
point, though, is that the music as a whole needs to strike a better balance
between self- expression and conservatory-level self-indulgence. Jazz is
good at shooting itself in the foot, but to continue underplaying the role
of vocalists would be the ultimate self-inflicted injury. Time, in short, to
stop sneering about girl singers and give artists their due

[Lois Gilbert]

This is a hot topic on the Jazz Programmers List. Thoughts?

[Paul B]

I'm not a jazz programmer, but I agree with much of this article. Horn pyrotechnics ain't always the answer (i.e. chops aren't music)...Sometimes you just want something simpler and more soulful. And the good singers out there deliver.....

Bye-ya

[John P. Cooper]

And the author is Clive Davis?

[Ron Thorne]

I'm with Paul. Chops don't equal music.

Technique has always taken a back seat to soulfulness, originality and honesty with me, and instrumentalists certainly don't own those characteristics within any music.

Reviewers need to do more blindfold tests.

[Tom Storer]

If there's a lack of soulfulness among jazz instrumentalists, that's a problem. But I don't get the impression the author understands it in other than commercial terms. If he or she hasn't noticed, record labels rush to sign and promote singers. If he thinks that critics drumming up custom for Jamie Cullum and Madeleine Peyroux is going to make a jazz a much more popular music, he's wrong--although it could certainly help make the singers concerned more popular.

Meanwhile the author is all excited about "the unmarked territory lying between pop and jazz"--in other words, "Come on, jazz, grab that market share by moving towards pop!" Uh-huh.

[Walt Davis]

what next will return jazz to popularity? rock-jazz fusion? jazz-hip hop combos? letting dj's sample from the blue note vault? a multi-night jazz documentary on public TV?

Remember when downbeat did a big cover story on acid jazz and how, good golly, it's got "jazz" in its name, it will bring the kids back?

10 years from now, it will be emo-jazz.

Not that I can disagree with Branford either. A little more audience interaction, a little more passion would be nice at times.

Anyway, perfectly happy for the singers who make it, I just don't think it'll make any sort of dent in the market for jazz. Already seems that many of those singers are moving closer and closer to pop.

[John L]

As Charlie Parker once said when asked about bebop and its relationship to other jazz, "it's all just music."

Let the singers sing. Let the horn players blow. Let the bass players walk. And don't foget to give the drummer some.

[cookie]

I think that most of the general public has difficulty listening to *any* instrumental music. It isn't what they hear on pop radio so they plain aren't used to it and they aren't necessarily sure of *how* to listen to it. My observation from teaching school is this: when I played instrumental music for students, I almost always had reactions of "Where are the words?"

People have an easier time with instrumental music if it's an instrumental version of a pop song they know and can "hear" the words in their head.

One thing popular jazz singers might do to "help" their instrumental brothers and sisters is to "feature" their bands playing instrumental music on their concerts---either to open the set or as a feature within a set. It gives the people a chance to hear instrumental music within the vocal setting they are most comfortable with. Another solution for instrumentalists is to include a vocal number if possible. Singing instrumentalists have always been popular in part because they provide variety and in part because I think it helps an audience relate to the band. This isn't to say that all instrumentalists *should* sing---just that when they do, it's generally easier for them to "come across" to a non-jazz audience.

[Gary Sisco]

There doesn't seem to be an end to these notions, if we even accept the notion that jazz requires a savior, which I don't.

We've seen the much hyped results of Krall, of KBJ, and etc. Nada.

People who can't deal with instrumental music aren't going to deal with jazz, much less save it.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

Meanwhile the author is all excited about "the unmarked territory lying between pop and jazz"--in other words, "Come on, jazz, grab that market share by moving towards pop!" Uh-huh.

I thought that territory was called Shlock and was pretty heavily settled.

[cookie]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

People who can't deal with instrumental music aren't going to deal with jazz, much less save it.

I agree with this. Even jazz singing has instrumental qualities. Some jazz singers use the words as a mere vehicle for improvisation and the lyric content and meaning becomes secondary to the musical phrasing and note changes. Some singers are able to bring *more* meaning to the words through improvisation and some jazz singers don't want to use words at all.

The cool thing about using words, even if you get free and loose with them, is that it gives non-jazz listeners something more or less familiar to hang their hat on.

Economically, it's a drag for artists, but in another way, being a fan of an "unpopular" music makes you kind of a hip outsider. In fact, just yesterday I was pipedreaming up a CD called "American Unpopular Song."

[jazzy mary]

What's "emo"??

[MRS]

[jazzy mary]

Hmmm, I need a little more than that. Who's "Emo"--what's it mean. Is it a type of music, a lifestyle? When ddi this start??

[rollhead]

Why doesn't it surprise me that this jerk thinks a punch in the face is funny?

[Surfer]

The saviors of jazz may be Atomic.

[Rob C]

Originally Posted by MRS

Hee hee hee. I vote that next year's beatdowns should be reserved for twentysomethings with big, bushy beards, a la the freak-folk types.

Actually, there might still be time to get in those beatdowns this year, before everyone gets busy with the holidays?

[Gary Sisco]

I'll never forget the first time I heard someone tell me that "I don't like music without words."

I thought it was the most ignorant thing I'd ever heard.

I was wrong, of course. I've since heard many things as ignorant.

[Rob C]

I pretty much only like jazz singers who sound like instrumentalists, anyway, like Betty Carter.

By the way, that Miles/Streisand story sounds apocryphal to me.

[Surfer]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I'll never forget the first time I heard someone tell me that "I don't like music without words."

I thought it was the most ignorant thing I'd ever heard.

I was wrong, of course. I've since heard many things as ignorant.

"Dont you have any songs with words in English?" - Surfer's brother

and

(upon hearing Moby, or some other remixed shit)

"Dont you like this song, Darren? He takes old songs and makes them better." - Surfer's brother

[clinthopson]

This gets into what has become a tiresome topic- can jazz be saved?

Improvisatory jazz has always had a small audience. Even during the time that jazz had the widest populariry, the swing era, improvization was usually limited to a few bars or one chorus.

Since then, the various directions the music has taken have attracted various audiences, but very rarely the large pop audience.

Pop music is easily accesable, a lot of jazz isn't that easy.

Some singers, like the ones mentioned above, may include jazz elements in their work but in the main, they play pretty safe.

Jazz, like classical music, will always have an enthusiastic audience, but it will never appeal to the general pop listeners.

[JamesH]

Jazz doesn't need saving, we just need to accept the fact that the music will always have a tiny market share. But when I'm in packed club or listening at home, market share is the last thing on my mind.

As far as singers....to my ears the saxophone and trumpet often communicate more emotion than the human voice.

[claude]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

This gets into what has become a tiresome topic- can jazz be saved?

Amen Clint!!

The issue should be how to make it so jazz musicians can make a decent living while playing music that only appeals to a small market.

[Walt Davis]

"emo" -- short for emotion, or emotional or emotive or something along those lines.

Skinny pale white boys whining about how hard it is being skinny pale white boys but in a somewhat more rocking way than the skinny pale white boys of 10-20 years ago. Faux, substantially less-talented David Bowie retreads is probably the handiest oversimplified analogy.

As to the popularity of jazz ... I think there is room for modest, uncompromised growth. As a whole, jazz musicians do a lousy job of building audiences, especially in the US. Very little touring, high ticket prices, an "elite" status -- these are all things which limit jazz's audience. That works fine for the handful that manage to establish the reputation and bring in the grants but it has seemed to me for some time that most lesser-known, younger musicians see that as the career path. There are obvious exceptions (most notably Ken Vandermark though frankly there's a bit of elitism and over-traditionalism even there).

I know the touring life is hard. But, at least back in the day, every middle-aged Austin singer-songwriter got his/her ass out on the road several months out of the year and, for the most part, those folks or their presenters aren't getting any grant funding. And it's an old story now, but I remember Godspeed Ye Black Emperor playing complex, non-danceable instrumental music from a darkened stage to a rapt audience of about 500 at a time when a top-name jazz show was lucky to draw 100-200 in Chapel Hill.

There is an audience out there with very wide-ranging musical taste and a willingness to experiment that I'm still convinced would very much appreciate lots of jazz. Jazz has almost completely failed to tap into that audience. I think that's in part due to jazz's elitism and its continuing fascination with the "traditional" music business model.

And while the article that starts this thread rightly chastises jazz some for its elitism, it's yet another example of that fascination with "making it big" rather than "making it OK."

To put it most simply: if you want to grow the audience for jazz, you have to reach beyond the jazz audience. But you don't reach out by watering down your music (not saying that's what these singers have done), you reach out by finding ways of getting your music in front of those other audiences. Stop playing jazz clubs, start playing regular clubs. Some of these singers, god bless em, have found ways to get beyond the regular jazz audience.

And as bad as it is for jazz musicians, it's at least as bad for those now probably 100,000 emo bands out there driving from club to club hoping to make it big ... well, OK, they probably have their parents and college degrees to fall back on when they don't make it, but at least they're out there busting their humps trying to find an audience.

[Frisco]

I'm ready for a Phil Minton sings Christmas Jazz disc.

[Gary Sisco]

Like I say every time this subject comes up (again), if every jazz person turns on one other, the audience doubles. And so on. I've done my part five or six times over.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Lois Gilbert

Davis was in the middle of a residency when Gordon's husband,
Max, asked if he would accompany a promising new vocalist. Davis, brusque as ever, turned him down flat. "I don't play behind no girl singers," he
rasped. And that was that. The young woman -- whose name was Barbra
Streisand -- was left to search for other paths to glory.

Further evidence of Miles' prescience and good taste.

[Gary Sisco]

Damn straight, Pete.

[BaconFat]

By the way, that Miles/Streisand story sounds apocryphal to me.[/QUOTE]

False or not, Miles told the story himself in his autobiography.

Anyway I think there are a ton of good singers out there making fine recordings though getting largely overlooked outside of cities like New York
and Chicago. Rene Marie, Carmen Lundy, Janis Siegal, Carla Cook, and Jeri
Brown among them. Jazz will survive if we want it to.