Jazz for aficionados

You are welcome. I would only add that I think humor and "in jest" are two different things. I suspect Bowie was deadly serious about what he played in that clip.

Curly: Hey Moe, I can't see, I can't see!

Moe: What's the matter porcupine, what's the matter?!

Curly: I got my eyes closed! Ynuk, ynuk.

Interesting and good comments from everyone - this is definitely the best thread this site has ever had.

Acman - you mention Bowie's humor, which is undeniable, and speak of him quoting the tradition, as well as playing outside of it. I guess what I am saying is that I do not hear him as ACTUALLY being outside of it at all, based on what I have heard here - he is merely using humor to pretend to be outside, which to me makes him very hypocritical if he is criticizing folks like Wynton. But this isn't about Wynton.

Frogman, again I agree with almost all of your post, especially the statement that rhythmic feeling is fundamental to all music. I agree this is unarguable. I also agree that Bowie does have this great sense of it, as do the other trumpeters discussed in your post.

I also agree that Bowie is humorous, unpredictable, and theatrical, based on the clips here. Here is where I disagree: for me, this humor and theatricality is as far as he goes. He is a performer putting on an act, much like many pop artists do - his playing/music making ON ITS OWN would not be enough to make it in his case, despite his good timing. I would disagree that he is actually furthering the art of jazz music, hence my earlier comment that he is hypocritical to criticize others for not being so. He may tell a good story, but so do many others. It is fun and entertaining on the surface, but for me it remains surface (and by the way, I would NOT argue that music must be serious to have substance, this is not what I mean at all). And I still fail to see how any of these clips show he is "outside the tradition". A great many other jazz musicians used humor, including Armstrong and Wynton (though in his case almost always without the irreverence). I don't think there is anything particularly novel in what he is doing in these clips, unless I am missing something. I think this is a case of style masquerading as substance.

Excellent comments, Learsfool; although it may seem otherwise, we have no substantive disagreement. This seeming dichotomy is further highlighted by a couple of interesting things that inadvertently go to the core of the issue. I am literally of two minds about all this, and that is the reason why I think it can be fairly said that we have no disagreement. Being someone who is steeped in the more traditional aspects of being a musician, I admit to an inner conflict concerning my reaction to the non-traditional; in this case, the avant-garde (in general, not just music). That's one mind. The other mind has (slowly) moved away from what at times was (and still is) an unnecessarily rigid view of art to a more accepting attitude that takes into account a changing world with changing attitudes and norms, and a changing view of what is "substance". That changing view of what substance is causes the most conflict for me. Not meaning to digress too much, but please bear with me:

Rap music. I WANT to hate rap. It violates so much of what I have spent so many years studying, respecting, learning and trying to hone. Yet, how does one completely dismiss a movement in music (?) that has had such a huge impact. I seriously dislike it and don't respect it. But, I don't hate it because it had to be; it reflects our culture. We can hate our culture (and in some ways I do) and we can decry the decline of standards in our culture (and art) 'till we are blue in the face, but it won't change the direction of the art (?) that reflects it. Worst of all, we can be so rapped :-) up in hating it that we may miss those rare moments when I do find myself saying: "oh, ok, I get it". How good a job it does of reflecting the culture is what defines its quality; its level of substance. Interestingly, and on a personal note, it has been my twenty year old son, a gifted young film maker and a true artist, who has shown me the value of not so readily dismissing what may not conform to MY standards. I am not talking about an abandonment of standards, but simply being more accepting of a different view of standards. I really believe that is the respect for traditional standards combined with an open mind for the new that creates the healthiest environment for really great art to happen.

The avante-guard in the arts (and I did not mean to suggest that rap is part of the avante-guard) seeks to break-down traditional standards and within this break-down a new set of standards takes shape that define it's "substance". That is not to say that one has to take on a "anything goes" or "it's all equally good" attitude. Not at all; there's still a lot of bullshit out there that tries to pass for art. As far as Bowie goes:

As I said before, truth is that as I don't know nearly enough of his work; but, what I heard in Acman3's first clip, and some of what is on the two records of his that I own, held my interest and made me want to listen to it. That's a lot more than I can say for a lot of what's out there. Does the music of a player who has a perfectly developed tone and schooled technique but sounds like so many before him have more substance? I'm not so sure. I have many recordings of accomplished traditionalists that simply don't hold my attention. Additionally, when someone like Acman3, someone who has clearly shown to have a sophisticated appreciation of music and is not part of "the masses", says "I love Bowie" (or whoever) I have to, at least, stop and consider what it is that is grabbing his attention. I think I heard it in that first clip.

Anyway, didn't mean to get preachy about this . Thanks for the great contributions.

Hi Frogman (and others following this) - wow, we are really getting down to it now! This last post of yours is very thought provoking indeed.

First, I agree that there is no substantive disagreement, and really didn't think there was in the first place. Your changing view of "substance" is something I glanced at when I mentioned aesthetics a couple of posts back. You choose an excellent example in discussing rap. What I find fascinating about rap is that what gives it substance, I think you will agree, has absolutely nothing to do with music. It is the words being spoken, and the message they contain. Rap is much closer to poetry than music. Of course the argument about whether the music or the lyrics of a song are more important is hundreds of years old now - clearly rap chooses the latter. As a performing musician (non-vocalist!), I used to be very puzzled by people who clearly only listened to certain groups/artists because they liked the lyrics of their songs, and in fact did not actually care much for the music. But they would listen over and over and over anyway because they liked "the message." I have always felt conflicted when talking with such people about music (and listening to the argument that such and such a song is good BECAUSE of the lyrics).

Speaking of the avant-garde and whether or not an artist or an institution is furthering the art form, another conflict I have that is relevant to this discussion is about the whole museum-piece thing. As in, are orchestras (this discussion can be applied to jazz equally well, of course) museum pieces (is jazz dead)? Many want orchestras to be forward thinking and come up with new ideas, etc. Same in jazz, as has been discussed in this thread. However, with the deplorable state of music education especially here in the US now, if orchestras are NOT talking about composers to young kids, if they never hear the names Mozart and Beethoven from us - who the hell are they going to hear them from? I wonder about this more and more, as orchestras move towards more multi-media presentations and play more film music, even in education concerts, where not a single composers name is mentioned....

Bear with me now as I quote one of my teachers, Greg Hustis, the former principal horn of the Dallas Symphony. Again, they would apply equally to the jazz world. These comments were made in the liner notes of one of his recordings (Lyrical Gems For The Horn, on the Crystal label): "The works on this CD were chosen simply because they are beautiful music...There is no unifying musical or stylistic "theme"...pieces were selected without regard to marketing strategies...well-intentioned promoters seem obsessed with the notion that only "new" or "different" gimmicks will aid the ailing recording industry. All too often we see the production of substandard works by obscure, untalented composers, arrangements of arrangements, bizarre orchestrations, and a rush of "crossover" recordings, usually lame attempts to give classical musicians the glitzy luster of pop stars...maybe we should work harder to present music that more listeners might enjoy. We cannot completely understand why great music stirs the soul. Nevertheless, perhaps by emphasizing the beauty, not the marketing of classical music will lead more of us to experience its mysterious and powerful force."

What does everyone think about this? Of course feel free to respond in terms of the jazz world, as this is ultimately a jazz thread. The same topics apply. Frogman is of course uniquely qualified to speak about both worlds, so? One comment I might throw out for discussion is that in the jazz world, Wynton seems to be trying BOTH approaches.