tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526704657739088406.post4702236917123667222..comments2024-02-01T12:37:55.180+00:00Comments on Mostly music: A Question of StatusRonan Guilfoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02668316692753726447noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526704657739088406.post-53953368657786115082009-04-03T05:14:00.000+01:002009-04-03T05:14:00.000+01:00I've been thinking more too, and while I can't say...I've been thinking more too, and while I can't say for sure, I'll bet Sonny Rollins or Keith Jarrett or Herbie Hancock are as well known even among the general public as are the classical interpreters you name. They may even earn as much or even more money when they play - as well they should. Of course none of them are even close to as well known or well paid as certain popular artists (U2, Madonna, et al) but that's another story.<BR/><BR/>Maybe Leonard Bernstein was the last of the "supermen" in classical music; a brilliant pianist, composer, conductor, educator and a pretty fair songwriter to boot.Lindsey Hornerhttp://www.lindseyhorner.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526704657739088406.post-57524865315675004672009-04-01T14:48:00.000+01:002009-04-01T14:48:00.000+01:00Hi Lindsey“If we subscribe to the theory that jazz...Hi Lindsey<BR/><BR/>“If we subscribe to the theory that jazz musicians are "spontaneous composers" and are thus engaging in an activity beyond the "mere interpretation" practiced by classical artists, even the best of them (Brendel, Perlman, Pollini etc), then shouldn't we be comparing the great jazz MUSICIANS to the great classical COMPOSERS?”<BR/><BR/>Yes, I think we should – in my original piece I very deliberately omitted the classical composers. For me the great composers are comparable in artistic stature to the great jazz musicians. In my opinion, and this is speaking personally, I would even go as far to say that it’s hard to think of anyone who can be spoken about in the same breath as J.S. Bach – classical or jazz. People like Bartok, Stravinsky, Mozart, Debussy, Beethoven and some others are at the very top of the artistic tree, and by any yardstick are among the greatest musicians in the history of humankind. The greatest of the jazz musicians and the greatest of the classical composers share similar abilities and qualities, and understand the totality of music in terms of its conceptual technical, interpretive and creative aspects. If you look back to such performer/composers as Mozart, Beethoven and Liszt I think you’re probably getting the best match to today’s great jazz musicians – people who not only understood music as an intellectual, conceptual and emotional concept, but who also had the instrumental technical facility and performance experience to interpret and play their own music in public.<BR/><BR/>This kind of super-being – composer/virtuoso performer/interpreter – has almost disappeared from classical music now, and the closest match to them can in my opinion be found in jazz. Someone like Miles Davis or John Coltrane, or Wayne Shorter embody all these virtues and are comparable to these musical giants in their all-encompassing musical abilities. Yet I would argue that the musical public not only don’t see the jazz guys in this way, but they even attribute higher artistic status to musicians who though embodying technical and interpretive greatness, have no creative aspect to their art at all. My posting on this subject is really relating to this – the question of why such higher status is given to musicians whose artistic work is not as complete as those who come from the jazz tradition.<BR/><BR/>I should say again that these comparisons can only be even entertained at the very highest level, in both disciplines. I take your point that it’s apples and oranges, (this exact point was also made to me by another musician in a private response), but the thing that bothers me the most is the status issue. I don’t think anyone could say that people like Brendel, Pollini and Rostropovich are (or were in the case of Rostropovich), undervalued in western society – they have very high status and receive commensurate financial rewards. Yet they play music written by somebody else. The aforementioned jazz giants played their own music, created a whole new language in some cases and yet are not seen in the same light, don’t receive the same financial rewards, and are not accorded the same status in the pantheon of the arts as the interpretive performers. And they should because they inhabit a different, and in my opinion more complete, artistic sphere to the interpretive performers. To go back to the original point you made in that paragraph, the jazz performers are in my opinion only comparable to the classical composers, but not only do they not receive the same kudos as the composers, they don’t even receive the same plaudits as performers who, no matter how great they may be technically and interpretatively, have never created anything of their own.<BR/><BR/>And while I take your point that “Even the most average classical musician in a (good) orchestra possesses skills of craft and interpretation that most jazz musicians, even in this most technically accomplished age, can only dream of” – while agreeing with that to some degree, I’ve also seen the other side of it. In one memorable incident the principal oboist in one of the professional orchestras here in Dublin’s first act at the first rehearsal of a new piece of mine was to come up to me and open negotiations with me concerning giving his part to the 2nd oboist so that he (the first oboist) could go home early from the rehearsal and the concert – how’s THAT for artistic integrity!<BR/><BR/>But to come to one other point you made – <BR/><BR/>“The other part of the issue is why classical artists (mere interpreters) get far more respect, (not to mention money and fame) than their comparable jazz counterparts. I think some of that is the fault of jazz artists and how we have presented ourselves and our music. I won't name names, but I have heard even some of the great jazz musicians give lackluster and even just plain lousy performances on any given gig. I have never heard, nor can I imagine ever hearing, Alfred Brendel, Izthak Perlman or the Tokyo String Quartet sounding any less than very, very good, ever”<BR/><BR/>This is a GREAT point! And one I hadn’t considered before. And it opens up a huge can of worms regarding this aspect of music making and the psychology behind it. Ever since I read your response I’ve been thinking about this, and I’d like to think about it a bit more before responding – I think it’s almost like an issue of its own. And when I do clarify my own thoughts on it I’ll write something about it. In the meantime, thanks for the considered response Lindsey and the feast of food for thought!Ronan Guilfoylehttp://www.ronanguilfoyle.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526704657739088406.post-74686791682874616282009-04-01T05:03:00.000+01:002009-04-01T05:03:00.000+01:00I'm loving this blog and how it entices me to wast...I'm loving this blog and how it entices me to waste what little free time I have any more. Anyway, this is a great topic and one that I have often thought of myself having spent time in both worlds and weighed the differences.<BR/><BR/>While I know what you're saying, I think there is an apples and oranges argument here. If we subscribe to the theory that jazz musicians are "spontaneous composers" and are thus engaging in an activity beyond the "mere interpretation" practiced by classical artists, even the best of them (Brendel, Perlman, Pollini etc), then shouldn't we be comparing the great jazz MUSICIANS to the great classical COMPOSERS? Are you prepared to say that Coltrane, Parker, Miles, Duke, great as they undeniably are, are greater than Mozart, Bach, Beetohoven? I'm not. Is what they've given us of as great an artistic value? Unquestionably - at least in my humble opinion.<BR/><BR/>The other part of the issue is why classical artists (mere interpreters) get far more respect, (not to mention money and fame) than their comparable jazz counterparts. I think some of that is the fault of jazz artists and how we have presented ourselves and our music. I won't name names, but I have heard even some of the great jazz musicians give lackluster and even just plain lousy performances on any given gig. I have never heard, nor can I imagine ever hearing, Alfred Brendel, Izthak Perlman or the Tokyo String Quartet sounding any less than very, very good, ever. <BR/><BR/>As for the "robot musicians", denigrated by Miles in the quote above, I think that view is disrespectful and ignorant - while acknowledging that Miles probably just wanted to stir the pot and piss people off. Even the most average classical musician in a (good) orchestra possesses skills of craft and interpretation that most jazz musicians, even in this most technically accomplished age, can only dream of. I've seen and heard it first hand. Likewise, even the most average jazz musician in a (good) band possesses skills of improvisation that most classical musicians find a complete mystery ("is what you're playing written down?") Apples and oranges.<BR/><BR/>Again though, I'm not prepared to say one is better than the the other. They're both great and both necessary and both worthy of respect.Lindsey Hornerhttp://www.lindseyhorner.comnoreply@blogger.com