Why Jazz Musicians Aren't More Politically Active

[Dennis Gonzalez]

In the Old Speakeasy, in a thread titled "Separating the Art from the Artist", it seemed to be the general consensus among my colleagues at JC that it is not cool with them to have a musician use the bandstand as a soapbox. According to most posts, if a musician decided to speak about his/her political (or even religious views) most listeners would walk.

My trio Yells At Eels, which includes my two sons, has been very politically active, including expression of political (especially anti-war) views. We did a benefit for "1919", an activist bookstore/concert hall/ pantry/ clothes closet for the homeless in Ft. Worth in February. Also in February, we played a series of workshops at the Highland Park Literary Festival where we stressed to the kids the importance of making their views known before it is too late. We used the example of Chilean musician-martyr Victor Jara, and we 've been ending our concerts with a pretty rabble-rousing version of Jara's "El Derecho de Vivir en Paz" (The Right to Live in Peace), and it never fails to get a great ovation.

These days it is not hip to express one's opposition to almost anything, especially as an artist and a musician, and it reminds me that it is always the artists and musicians (along with college professors and writer and students) who are first carted away when rights are taken away, such as I've seen happen under the Patriot Act. And I've seen that my anti-war stance is not very popular with some of my JC colleagues. Apparently, I am naive about how I feel about violence.

If this post is at the top of the heap, just know that Lois actually started this thread.

[Lois Gilbert]

By Don Heckman, Special to The LA Times

March 21 2003

With both the country and the world fracturing in all directions over the
confrontation with Iraq, the jazz world has displayed few visible reactions.
The sudden surfacing of Musicians United to Win Without War in their recent full-page ad in several major newspapers was less surprising than the fact that not a single jazz artist was represented in the signatures. Can it really have been that difficult to line up a jazz artist for inclusion?

The answer has less to do with any concern about the current situation than it does with a reconfirmation of the fact that jazz musicians have rarely
involved themselves in activist efforts. Rarely, that is, but not never. The
difference is that jazz activism, like the music, has almost always tended
to be an individual expression, and -- perhaps most significantly -- it has
been focused on social rather than political issues.

Examples abound. Billie Holiday sang "Strange Fruit" -- surely one of the
most powerful indictments of racial violence ever written -- at Cafe Society
in 1939. Duke Ellington chose to make Southern tours with his orchestra in
the '40s and '50s in private railroad cars rather than have the musicians
stay in segregated lodgings.

In the late '50s, Louis Armstrong, responding to the actions of Arkansas
Gov. Orval Faubus, who called out the National Guard to prevent nine African
American students from attending high school, refused to participate in a
State Department trip to Russia. And Charles Mingus, reacting directly to
the Little Rock situation in 1959, composed "Fables of Faubus," a marvelous
use of jazz as a weapon for social change.

But it was the '60s that saw the most widespread growth of jazz activism. As
with pop music, it undoubtedly was energized by the events of the decade,
from the assassinations of the two Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X to the expanding Vietnam War. The sense of protest coursed through the music of artists as diverse as John Coltrane, Archie Shepp,
Cecil Taylor, Max Roach and Sonny Rollins. And Rahsaan Roland Kirk's Jazz
and People's Movement -- in an unusual example of outright jazz group
activism -- disrupted the television shows of Dick Cavett and Johnny Carson.

How effective have these actions been? From some perspectives, they have been extremely effective. Author, activist and teacher Angela Davis has
argued, for example, that "Strange Fruit" rejuvenated "the tradition of
protest and resistance in African American and American traditions of
popular music and culture."

One could say the same thing about the impact of Bob Dylan's songs in the
'60s. But instrumental music, which is predominant in jazz, comes from a
more abstract place than songs with lyrics. And although its influence is
far less direct, it can -- as the music of Ornette Coleman, Coltrane and
others did in the '60s -- serve as the nonverbal but emotionally powerful
soundtrack for a particular era and a particular cultural change.

War in Iraq would not seem to be a likely flash point for jazz activism of
whatever sort. But if, as many are predicting, the Bush administration is
taking the nation into a transformative era of global empire, the changes
will soon become manifest in the music. And it would not be surprising if,
as in the '60s, there is a polarity between the music of longing and the
music of violence. One thing's for sure: Jazz, like the rest of American
culture, will soon be moving into uncharted territory.

Other voices of activism

The heterogeneous mixture of sounds and rhythms that can generically be
described as the music of Africa has played a considerably different role in
the progress of that continent's many nations. The recent documentary
"Amandla" revealed the vital importance of music to the fight against
apartheid. And "Music Is the Weapon of the Future: Fifty Years of African
Popular Music" (Lawrence Hill Books) by Frank Tenaille offers an impressively detailed survey of the principal artists and issues in virtually every country's post-colonial era.

Thirty important musicians -- from Miriam Makeba and Fela Kuti to Alpha
Blondy and Youssou N'Dour -- are profiled. The diversity of their music,
which rings with elements of jazz, reggae, Afro-Cuban and traditional
sounds, does not mask the fact that in many cases it has specific political
and social goals. Tenaille's cogent descriptions explore the courageous
qualities of performers who have risked beatings, incarceration and even
death for the expression of their views through their music.

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

Missed the old thread, and am banning myself from looking at the old JC - otherwise I'll be behind with both boards, but:

The output of some groups seems to me to be inherently political - or at least to contain strong social/philosophical content, although that need not be stated explicitly.

Although a bit late in the day, it looks like myself and a few other musicians will be starting a very loud (and hopefully large) anti-war free-improv group, mobile enough to go on demos. A lot of liner-notes also express political content that might not otherwise be gained from listening to the music by itself.

There's no Liberation Music Orchestra any more, but many of those self-consciously political groups since the '60s (Cardew's spring to mind, as does the Manic Street Preachers, and Chumbawumba, and most punk groups for that matter) tend to have political lyrics combined with run of the mill pop/rock/dance-tunes, and are often firmly planted withing the corporate superstructure.

If you look at bands like Slipknot or Marilyn Manson, that seem to be yoof's choice of subversion, they are musically closer to the Eagles than the Sex Pistols, and simply make money out of kids trying to piss off their parents (and school teachers). If it was my kids listening to that shite, I'd be pissed off at them for not trying harder.

[Gary Sisco]

Dennis -- I think, with all artists, as with any other fields, it depends on the people, more than the type. Many musicians are apolitical, many are more "cultural," and some are overtly political. I don't think artists are any different than anyone else in that regard. There are plenty around, though, particularly if you include the cultural (as in cultural subversion) orientation.

I recently heard Dave Douglas's new band (on their first ever live gig) and Douglas started the show with an antiwar statement, before note one was played.

Last year, the Vision Festival announced itself as a Memorial Day for the memory and spirit of Don Cherry (which, as a vet, I found kind of tasteless -- Memorial Day being far from a celebration of war -- though I understand what they were, not every articulately, trying to say, so it didn't cause offense).

There is also the economic facts of life. If you run your mouth in the current climate (assuming you have any kind of name with large numbers of people, anyway), you will encounter opposition and probable economic consequences of having done so. Most artists' lives, as you know, as economically tentative enough in the best of circumstances, so ...

Back in the days, this was very much the case with black artists especially. There *would be* economic consequences of running your mouth about civil rights, foreign policies, etc. Hence, many tried to avoid speaking publicly about these things, if they could. Others went ahead and did so anyway -- the allegedly "tom"-ish Louis Armstrong being, ironically, one of the most vocal about the vicious treatment of blacks during the civil rights days, to the extent of refusing to do international tours for the State Department as a protest, when others who were never labeled "toms" tried to duck for cover as best they could.

One of the great examples, also ironic, of what I'm talking about here is Kofsky's entirely mediocre (at best) and unsuccessful attempt to draw an inherent connection between 60s free jazz and black nationalism in the US. After going on and on in the body of his book making incredible assertions, in the attacked interviews with the musicians, what they had to say ran entirely counter to his thesis. One wonders, given that, why the interviews were included. Whatever. The book was unsuccessful and did nothing to further his thesis. If anything, the musicians simply contradicted it, when allowed to speak for themselves.

But the truth of the matter was that if a brother got vocal about his thoughts in those days, he'd find the available work drying up fairly quickly afterwards, the business, then as now, being controlled by whites -- especially the clubs, which were the major source of work at the time.

[Tom Storer]

Dennis, I have no problem with artists speaking out, including at their gigs. I think it's admirable of anyone to be politically committed. However, politically committed artists have to realize that they'll piss off those in their audience who disagree with them - just the price of commitment, that's all.

On the old JC, I mentioned a friend whose history led her to support Bush (because she had reasons to hate the Democrats). She was annoyed when a singer whose concert she was enjoying made a crack about Bush. It didn't bother me, because I don't like Bush. But I can understand that she was put off.

Some musicians might feel that their music *itself* is "anti-war," "progressive," or whatever. But - especially in the case of instrumental music - there's no saying how their listeners feel about that. I'll bet if Gordon Blewis (where's Gordon, anyway?) sat down with some of the AG artists he loves, they might disagree on a few of the finer points of American foreign policy. ;-) (And the same might go for Alex!)

For me it isn't a question of disapproving of politically committed artists expressing themselves in and around their performances. Certain political statements would offend me - I'm not going to be going to any gigs with Amiri Baraka involved, for example. I don't think he's wrong to give voice to his belief that Israel conspired to let the 9/11 attacks go through, but I do think that particular belief is absurd and gives comfort to anti-Semites, so I won't be in attendance.

Democracies must trod the line between the need for everyone to get along, and therefore the impulse to smooth over conflicts and reach what the French disparagingly call "le consensus mou," the limp consensus, and the need for political debate to be open and lively. At one extreme you risk a stifling atmosphere of uneasy self-censorship; at the other, you risk passions boiling over from outspoken debate to polarization and violent confrontation. The issue is where to draw the line. Listeners to music have only to react according to their own beliefs - they can simply vote with their feet and their CD-buying dollars; artists have to weigh the risk of their social actions alienating people whose openness to their art they would otherwise value.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Gary and Tom...understood.

I've never ranted on stage about this or that political belief. Until the weeks leading up to the Iraqi-American war. Now that the war is on, I'll probably go back to trying to create peace with just my instrument. Usually I take on a role of storyteller and illustrate the music - which is mostly instrumental - with anecdotes and remembrances of experiences or people who (that) have crossed my path.

My sons, on the other hand, play their own hardcore/punk duo music to an audience that would ask tough questions if they didn't give a spiel about how they feel about this war, or other injustices.

I don't believe I've ever alienated an audience with my beliefs...if anything, audience members usually come up and say to me that they wish I'd interacted more with them - told more stories, illustrated a bit more. As a "travel poet" I frequently read my words with the group providing an aural background, and in that way bring them in and give them time to adjust to the sometimes difficult (read avant ) music that I sometimes present.

Part of the reason I decided to teach is that I don't have to rely on income from CD's - especially if I'm boycotted because of my views - which at times has been phenomenally lucrative and at times pretty measly!

BTW, I don't know if people are realizing the tragedy of this war, or if this new format for Speakeasy has changed things, but it seems that people are kinder to each other, and more accepting...less sniping at each other, more free flow of good info and great vibes. I like that feeling of brother/sisterhood that we are going through now!

¡El Pueblo Unido Jamas Será Vencido!

[RainyDay]

I also wonder if some jazz artists are being driven by fear. They are already in a musical genre that has been declared on life supprt and near death. Alienating the public could mean no recording label and less food on the table. Youngsters may go to see rock artists they don't agree with but I don't think jazz fans are nearly as forgiving.

[graypencil]

Originally posted by RainyDay
I also wonder if some jazz artists are being driven by fear. They are already in a musical genre that has been declared on life supprt and near death. Alienating the public could mean no recording label and less food on the table. Youngsters may go to see rock artists they don't agree with but I don't think jazz fans are nearly as forgiving.

(originally posted by GAry Sisco )

>>There is also the economic facts of life. If you run your mouth in the current climate (assuming you have any kind of name with large numbers of people, anyway), you will encounter opposition and probable economic consequences of having done so. Most artists' lives, as you know, as economically tentative enough in the best of circumstances, so ...<<

I think there's a large element of truth in the above ..( especially, after t he recent Natalie Mains incident ). It's been my experience that musicians are representative of the overall population ..some left, some right, ( especially the Nashville contingent for a large part ) and many are apathetic. caring basically only for the craft they're pursuing.

I do think the rock folks are more "political" as a group than jazz guys ..but that could just be a visibility factor.

[Jazzooo]

I just saw British fingerstyle guitar wizard Adrienne Legg at a small San Diego club. he got political after the first song, making jokes about Bush and Rumsfeld. It wasn't that I disagreed with anything he said--in fact, I was in total agreement. But it pissed me off all the same. Why? Because I knew that some portion of the audience, maybe the guy sitting right next to me, had just been insulted for what he believes. We're grownups, and we don't need to be lectured or chastised when we go to hear music.

There have been other times when i wasn't as bothered by this stuff at all, but at this point when I pay to hear music, that's what I want to hear.

Dennis, one of the first rules of marketing is that you rarely if ever hear from the people you alienate. You might think that if someone was bugged they'd come and give you a piece of their minds, but it doesn't panout like that--they just leave feeling bad. This isn't meant to stop you from doing anything you want to do, but I just thought I'd point it out.

[James Lee]

Re. Jazzooo's last post - a sign in one of the hallways where I work reads:

"90% of unhappy clients don't complain. They just dont come back."

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Like I said...I choose my audiences carefully. If the audience came to listen to music, I play music and tell stories. If the audience came for a benefit or a rally, I speak out.

I understand both sides. Been doin' it for 30+ years.

[Tom Storer]

One thing: I think there's a difference between:

a) Parenthetically making a political statement at a concert in a respectful way: I think even if we disagree we can accept that and wait for the music to start up again.

b) Dedicating a concert to a person or cause: Hey, if we don't agree we can leave, but it's a statement and a brief one.

b) Ranting angrily - even if we agree we're likely to be annoyed.

c) Making wisecracks about one public figure or another - this assumes the audience is on the wisecracker's side, and those who aren't will feel slighted or offended.

I think the politically committed artist is likely to do a) or b) regardless of marketing considerations, for one aspect of sincere political commitment is that marketing is secondary to it (although sometimes everyone ends up compromising).

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Yes Tom...exactly. I wouldn't have made it as far in my career if I'd never compromised. As it is, I've done pretty well.

[Jazz-in-Aust]

Jazz is about your own experiences. it's only about what your living through. but unless you've got relatives in the war, or you had someone close to you killed in 9/11, then your not directly involved in these big issues. so how can it come out of your music. Billie Holiday, John Coltrane, Sonny Rollins. these guys were on the hard end of the opression that you hear in their music. that's why they can talk about it. But perhaps it's because we are not as directly connected to the big political issue, aside from our opinions.

But i am an Australian, so you may see it differently in America, but we won't go into that.

[crawjo]

I don't have any problem with artists using the stage to say whatever they want, but like everything else they do on that stage, what they say should be open to criticism.

[Ellery Eskelin]

Some say that music is inherently political. You can certainly look at it that way if you so choose but music speaks to more than just politics. So I want my music to humanize people, remind them that they are human beings and allow them to think and feel for themselves. They don't need me to tell them how to feel about anything.

That doesn't mean I won't say something political on stage if I feel so moved. And I don't begrudge others who do. But I don't align my music with politics in any overt way. Music speaks to aspects of being a human being that politics can't begin to touch. Being a thinking, feeling human being allows politics to happen. So we need the impractical...we need dreamers...humans have many needs beyond what politics can address and music and art is a way into that.

So I want to be inclusive. I don't want to turn music into propaganda or have a concert set the stage for just another intractable politico-deathlock. It's easy to stand in front of a bunch of people who feel the same way you do and yell about how fucked up George Bush is but it's a lot harder to do that in front of a group that may not share those beliefs unless you're just into starting fights.

I decided years ago that I wanted to develop the ability to find some way to relate to just about anyone no matter what their political or religious beliefs might be. It's so easy as a musician playing this kind of music to identify with a small community of "enlightened" individuals and simply write off the world at large as being too commercial, too stupid or too whatever thus losing ones own humanity in the process.

What's really great is when you have an opportunity to reach someone who is beyond your circle in terms of music, art, politics. It happens from time to time and I want to make that happen more often. Once you gain people's trust and open up to them honestly they often open up in return. Once that happens you can actually make some progress towards change. Not by telling people how to feel but by facilitating a process by which they can learn and change for themselves. And of course that goes for me too as an artist. I want to learn something in that process as well. Attacking people just makes them defensive. If you can get someone to open up they will often discuss their own fears and uncertainties about life, art or politics without you having to point them out.

That said, I personally feel that it's important for me to speak out and go on record against what I see as being wrong with the current state of affairs. Whether I do that from the bandstand is less the issue. I know how I feel about this administration and what's going on and I'm not afraid to talk about it with anyone at anytime nor am I afraid to put myself on the line in ways that might be inconvenient for my career. To be honest it hasn't come to that. Jazz musicians have less to worry about on this score since most folks in this sector of the music business tend to be pretty liberal anyway. But one never knows the political persuasion of those behind the scenes people who may be in positions to help or hinder an artist. Any artist who goes on record with their political positions risks alienating a potential ally. But then there's no way to be wishy-washy and hope to be recognized for who you are and the strength of what you do. That was a lesson I learned years ago when I first came to New York. Trying to be the musician others wanted me to be got me nowhere quick. It wasn't until I took a stand that I gave people something to react to.

The other part of this is that I would never want to be seen as exploiting political issues for personal gain. But that's something that can only be assessed on a case by case basis. The flip side would be going along to get along to the point of ignoring important social issues for personal gain (or to avoid personal inconvenience).


PS Nat said there's no liberation orchestra anymore but currently they're out on tour this summer in Europe.

[SEJ]

As an artist, you have a special opportunity to reach people. I think the way to do it is to concentrate on art. Bring some beauty into the world. In apprehending beauty, we have common ground despite political differences. That common ground is a basis of goodwill, which facilitates discourse. Yes, speak your mind -- but I wouldn't counsel doing it from the bandstand. That is the forum for your art. Off the bandstand, when you speak your mind, the listener who appreciates your art will approach you crossing the bridge you built with your art.

Jazzooo is right, I think, that you'll push away just those you want to reach by using the bandstand as a soapbox. And it is probably economically imprudent as well.

[shrugs]

Originally Posted by RainyDay

I also wonder if some jazz artists are being driven by fear. They are already in a musical genre that has been declared on life supprt and near death. Alienating the public could mean no recording label and less food on the table. Youngsters may go to see rock artists they don't agree with but I don't think jazz fans are nearly as forgiving.

Isn't most of the public already alienated from independent record labels?
As far as fans not going to hear musicians that have different views goes, I don't think Charles Gayle would have made it past a few years if that was truly the case.

[GoodSpeak]

I have to agree with Doug on this one.

By way of an example...I was at a Jazz festival wherein the artist took it upon himself to rag on then California Gov. Davis and espouse the republican candidate, the AH-nold. While many in the crowd seemed receptive, it totally turned me off to his performance. Besides...he was from New Jersey. Yeah, as if they know anything at all about California.

As a certain result, though he and his band were very good, I wouldn't walk across the street to spit on one of his CDs.

I was further amazed [and repulsed] to learn Lionel Hampton was a republican dupe, er...supporter.


Politics and Jazz just plain don't mix.

[crawjo]

So you won't support an artist if you like their work but disagree with their political views? How enlightened of you.