[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by monolith /img/forum/go_quote.gif Basically, it's a lot easier to get art (in this case music) to the people these days than it was before. The availability of music has increased, while (in his opinion, which I profoundly disagree with) the vitality of that music has decreased.

Thanks, I think I get what Bigshot means now.
In that interpretation however he would be supporting my statement that bringing the arts to the masses (and in doing so, making it commercially dependent on it) is counter productive to art. The commitment to "the general public" makes art wither an die.

He is arguing my point while trying to contradict it?????

No. Not completely. He also said "ironically". But it would only have been ironical (and unexpected) if his point of view were true. It would have been as expected and quite logical if my point of view holds any merit.

Nice to see that he actually sees happening what I describe though.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tru blu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course, he was proud of them; the tunes that came out of The Far East Suite or the "Black" section of Black, Brown and Beige (to name just two) are fantastic. But one thing you'll learn from any reading about Ellington is that he was pret-ty shrewd when it came to presenting his art. We now know that it's quite possible for jazz folk to do longer pieces and not call them "suites," so my guess is that in the cultural climate of the time Duke was hedging a little. Actually, the writer Paul Bowles wrote an unfavorable review of the first performances of Black, Brown and Beige at Carnegie Hall; Bowles thought they were simply (I'm paraphrasing) smaller pieces unnecessarily stretched out.

As far as I'm concerned you can be absolutely right.
My point was more to indicate that they were done after the 40's. And in the fact that Ellington was very fond of them, that Ellington did probably not consider himself to be a "pre-40's"-fenomenon. He tried something different and he and I think he succeeded pretty nicely.
Besides that I still think his orchestra's were briliant entertainment in the first place, with some room for extra's . In his Suites I think he allowed himself some more room for "art" aspirations.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Clarke68, you're just reacting without listening to what I'm saying. There is good jazz being made today and there are great musicians. I don't disagree with that. The problem is that no artform can be truly vital when it is marginalized as a niche. That's the difference with jazz in the first half of the 20th century and the second half. For jazz to rise again, it needs to engage the public... and that doesn't mean just becoming a jazzy version of rock or becoming more commercial. It means becoming something that everyone can relate to and be uplifted by. It used to be that. It isn't any more. As long as jazz continues to dwindle down to smaller and smaller pieces of the pie, it doesn't matter how targeted those pieces are. It will still dwindle away into nothing.

Call me Clarke, we're friends now.

What I think I hear you saying is you miss the entertainment factor that early Jazz had. As you pointed out earlier, Louis Armstrong was both a sublime, evocative, virtuoso soloist and a consummate entertainer. Most people only saw the latter part...you had to really listen to hear the first part. There are others like him, although they are rare (and they don't necessarily play jazz), but they "suffer" the same "fate" (bad choices of words, I know...it's late): the depth of their craft goes largely unnoticed because their audiences are having such a good time.

For the most part, tho, our culture is divided...call it "art" vs. "entertainment", "high-brow" vs. "low-brow", or whatever...we (okay, I) tend to think that you can have art or entertainment, but they aren't the same thing.

That said, I think jazz continued to grow artistically after the '40s (the other discussion here about Ellington illustrates that nicely) but the audience didn't grow with it. IMO, that's the fault of the audience, not of jazz musicians. Bird and Diz weren't trying to alienate people...they were excited about "the new sound" (as it was called before the term "bebop" was coined), and were surprised and disappointed when the larger swing audience didn't catch on.

Europeans don't seem to have any problem being entertained by "serious" art music...all the greats from the '50s on have played large halls over there and get treated like dignitaries, while here they play small clubs and have to enter using the freight elevator.

I'd like to see jazz as revered in it's native land as it is abroad, and I'd like to see jazz musicians have an easier time making a living. Like you, I don't think the solution is dumbing down the music, but I don't think it's putting the shine on, either (and although he was 100% genuine about it, that's exactly what Armstrong was doing).

 

[tru blu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif For the most part, tho, our culture is divided...call it "art" vs. "entertainment", "high-brow" vs. "low-brow", or whatever...we (okay, I) tend to think that you can have art or entertainment, but they aren't the same thing.

Not trying to start another war or anything, but I really wish this false dichotomy would kinda go away. It's true that different groups of people enjoy what we're refering to as "art" and "entertainment," but aren't those terms really smokescreens for other things, like what social-class or group you aspire to be in or come from? Speaking from a neurological standpoint, when the pleasure centers in the brain are stimulated while one is enjoying Louis Armstrong or Albert Ayler, say, or viewing a painting by Franz Kline or Monet, those pleasure centers are working the same way. Kees seems to suggest that Ellington's pre-'40s work was "lowbrow," but Ellington certainly didn't think that, and both he and Armstrong were reputedly masters at deflecting condescension. (As public "blues people" in a decidedly un-bluesy world, they had to be.) Bigshot makes it seem as if Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie Parker were gunning to be "highbrow," but does that really make sense when you consider that they were making challenging, "small-club" music (at least, in the States) at precisely the same time that Ellington began writing concert-hall-type "suites"? Where does Miles Davis's amazingly varied work/career fit into all this? I hope some of it makes a little sense to someone other than me.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tru blu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not trying to start another war or anything, but I really wish this false dichotomy would kinda go away. It's true that different groups of people enjoy what we're refering to as "art" and "entertainment," but aren't those terms really smokescreens for other things, like what social-class you aspire to be in or come from? Speaking from a neurological standpoint, when the pleasure centers in the brain are stimulated while one is enjoying Louis Armstrong or Albert Ayler, say, or viewing a painting by Franz Kline or Monet, those pleasure centers are working the same way. Kees seems to suggest that Ellington's pre-'40s work was "lowbrow," but Ellington certainly didn't think that, and both he and Armstrong were reputedly masters at deflecting condescension. (As public "blues people" in a decidedly un-bluesy world, they had to be.) Bigshot makes it seem as if Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie Parker were gunning to be "highbrow," but does that really make sense when you consider that they were making challenging, "small-club" music (at least, in the States) at precisely the same time that Ellington began writing concert-hall-type "suites"? Where does Miles Davis's amazingly varied work/career fit into all this? I hope some of it makes a little sense to someone other than me.

Hardly makes sense to me (yet), but one thing sticks out I think is essential.
The essential difference between "art" and "entertainment" has little to do with "highbrow" or "lowbrow" (some, indirectly, but not much).
Art chalenges you to think and look at things differently than you usually do. Art is unsettling by nature.
Art is by definition meant to make you feel NOT at ease.
Entertainment on the other hand is aiming to make you feel good, at ease and comfortable. Just a LITTLE bit unpredictable to keep your attention and just enough to prevent it from being boring.
If "highbrow" stands for people who have an investigating attitude, want to experience and learn new things and who are attracted to the unknown and the (sometimes) strange and unpredictable, it seem to be expected that these people will be more atracted to "art" than to "entertainment".
If "lowbrow" stands for people who prefer safety and comfort (and thus usually predictability) over uncertaity, it stands to reason that they will prefer what I call "entertainment" over "art".
I don't think it is a black-and-white or good-bad distinction. Most people have both sides in them, but some are more inclined and capable of enjoying a chalenge than others.

 

[tru blu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif Art is by definition meant to make you feel NOT at ease.

Whose "definition"? Monet's work made a lot of folks feel uneasy in the 19th century. It doesn't anymore, but it's still great art. And no one should have to know about the "unease" to see that; it's in the craft. The same can be said about any number of jazz masterpieces.

 

[Spyro]

Once music became more about the business and less about the art and artist, jazz (as well as other genres) started taking a backseat. It is too difficult to get exposure in a market driven towards kids, teenagers, instant gratification and music that generally "clicks" immediately and is disposable. Jazz is generally listened to by people over 40 and most people over 40 don't even know how to streamline a radio station or computerize their music. It's a shame. If it wasn't for jazz there might not be rock or blues or R & B, etc. How easily forgotten. No airplay = no exposure = out of sight out of mind.

Just my $0.02

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tru blu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Whose "definition"? Monet's work made a lot of folks feel uneasy in the 19th century. It doesn't anymore, but it's still great art. And no one should have to know about the "unease" to see that; it's in the craft. The same can be said about any number of jazz masterpieces.

If I stand in front of a painting and I am not moved, if no emotion is triggered (if I am not unsettled), it failed for me to be a piece of art.
No matter the craftsmanship that may be involved.

I think the decision if something is a piece of art or not is a very personal one, and it can (and will) change in the course of time.

I think a Monet painting is a piece of art, because it moves me. And also because of the way he accomplishes this is unique.
But the more one gets used to the way he expressed himself and the more common it becomes, the more his paintings will feel like entertainent and less like art. They will end up as a poster on the wall that no-one really looks at.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by monolith /img/forum/go_quote.gif Basically, it's a lot easier to get art (in this case music) to the people these days than it was before. The availability of music has increased, while (in his opinion, which I profoundly disagree with) the vitality of that music has decreased.

No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. In the 30s and 40s, mass communication was set up to distribute the art *of* the people, not just *to* the people. Entertainment business commerce was based on making money from an alive and vital artistic culture, whether that was movies, music or illustration. The corporations who pressed records, made movies or published magazines didn't decide what the public would want to see, they went out and published what the public was currently enjoying.

To see this clearly, all you have to do is watch a bunch of classic movies from the 1930s, thumb through a couple of copies of Esquire or Colliers, or listen a sampling of the jazz being recorded them. It was all brand new and it was all quite challenging artistically. The artists challenged themselves to compete and learn from each other with every new movie or every new record that came out. When Armstrong's Muskrat Ramble came out on record, it caused a revolution in music. There was a trememdous give and take between artists and between artists and their audiences. Probably the last time this happened was when the Beatles brought rock music to the world... That's forty years ago.

Today, although we have much better technology to deliver art, commercial interests have focused the market on a very narrow sliver of pre-processed and commercially selected material. Popular culture is no longer driving what the distributors distribute... executives and marketing directors are trying to drive popular culture. This has resulted in incredible technology like satellite TV delivering 110 channels- all basically the same; and mainstream music that hasn't really changed or grown in forty years.

The big difference between the 30s and now, which I guess people your age just aren't aware of, is that the best art being made back then *was* mainstream. When you had those powerful distribution channels pumping out artistically important movies, records and artwork to everyone in the world, a synergy occurred in the culture that caused it to progress very, very fast. The reason that art today seems so fragmented and stagnated is because it isn't mainstream. Ironically, the Beatles and Andy Warhol, who predicated their revolutions on pop culture only succeeded in killing it dead.

I guess the confusion here comes down to the fact that people in their 20s today have never really experienced great art in the mainstream. That's led them to assume that popularity means "lowest common denominator" and favor marginalized niches. Sad.

The history of the first half of the 20th century is astounding, and when you compare just about anything then (aside from technology) to today, modern life pales in comparison. The primary difference was that back then, mass media served to elevate culture, not to stoop to its level and in so doing hold it back. I believe the internet provides an opportunity for a return to a vital popular culture. But as long as young people can't recognize a vital creative culture looks like when they see it, and they don't see a value in it, it isn't likely to happen.

As you can see, modern jazz is just one part of a larger puzzle for me.

See ya
Steve

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tru blu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I really wish this false dichotomy would kinda go away. It's true that different groups of people enjoy what we're refering to as "art" and "entertainment," but aren't those terms really smokescreens for other things, like what social-class you aspire to be in or come from?

Good point/question. I agree I'd like to see the distinction vanish, and I don't know really where it came from, although I think elitism definitely has something to do with it. It takes an open mind to find the art in the entertainment of another culture...for example, I know a lot of jazz fans who would never admit that a hip-hop artist could be brilliant, even in the face of someone like DJ Qbert, who is an absolute virtuoso.

I like Lee Morgan and I like Anthony Braxton; but I also like Green Day and I like Mariah Carey. At the end of the day, the distinction between what is art and what is entertainment doesn't mean much to me...which kinda makes them harder to define when it comes to discussions like this.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees Art is unsettling by nature. Art is by definition meant to make you feel NOT at ease. Entertainment on the other hand is aiming to make you feel good, at ease and comfortable.

Nah...that can't be it. Compare any Mozart symphony; which is beautiful, makes you feel good, and is about as "high brow" art as it gets; to a movie like "Saw III"; which is incredibly unsettling and is about as "low brow" entertainment as it gets. You even refute your own notion here: Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees I think a Monet painting is a piece of art, because it moves me. And also because of the way he accomplishes this is unique.

There are lots of ways to be moved besides being unsettled, or put "NOT at ease".

Art isn't any one thing. It certainly can be unsettling and make you uneasy, but it can also be inspiring, make you want to climb a mountain, call up an old friend, or remind you of your first crush.


Maybe art & entertainment aren't seperate at all, but art is like a "category" within entertainment...the stuff we do to pass the time that isn't work. Other "categories" could be, like, sports (both watching and playing) or playing games.

Earlier in this thread (although a year or two ago) I explained that art was unique in that it required something from it's audience...time, attention, perhaps a certain humility to let the artist be the artist. I don't know. But it kinda fits in this example:

Getting back to jazz, I think Louis Armstrong's attitude towards his audience was something akin to, "you paid your hard-earned money to come here tonight, I'm going to make sure you have a good time." He'd crack jokes, play hit songs, and also play some absolutely freaking killer trumpet for the people who were there to hear that. Everyone had a good time.

Contrast that with the attitude of Miles or Mingus, which was more like, "I'm here to play. You paid your money to listen, so shut up." Which is, actually, fine with me. I saw Miles a couple of times, he didn't say much and played with his back to the audience most of the time, but it still blew me away. I'm fine if a player wants to tell jokes or say, "how 'ya doin' out there?" between tunes, but I don't require that to be entertained.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That said, I think jazz continued to grow artistically after the '40s (the other discussion here about Ellington illustrates that nicely) but the audience didn't grow with it. IMO, that's the fault of the audience, not of jazz musicians.

As someone who works in the entertainment business, I can say without doubt that it's *never* the audience's fault. When the curtain goes up, the folks in the seats are there to be entertained and enlightened. That's their expectation. If that doesn't happen, it isn't because they don't want to be entertained and enlightened, it's because a performer isn't doing his job of entertaining and enlightening. It takes both for a performer to click with an audience, and when jazz got too serious for its own good, the people who wanted entertainment too moved with Louis Jordan and the jump blues crowd until Elvis blew the roof off for them with rock n' roll. By that time, jazz couldn't recover what it had lost. The Beatles and rock music marginalized it to the point that all jazz could do is absorb some of rock's limelight with fusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Europeans don't seem to have any problem being entertained by "serious" art music...all the greats from the '50s on have played large halls over there and get treated like dignitaries, while here they play small clubs and have to enter using the freight elevator.

I used to think that in the 50s, Europeans were listening to modern jazz. They were to a certain extent of course, but primarily Europe was a haven for big acts from earlier eras. Armstrong, Fitzgerald, Ellington and Basie all played to packed houses in Europe. In America, these giants were being looked down upon as "old fashioned". Yow! To have that sort of stuff to snub today!

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyro /img/forum/go_quote.gif Once music became more about the business and less about the art and artist, jazz (as well as other genres) started taking a backseat.

That's a bingo. It's hard to steer the car from the back seat.

See ya
Steve

 

[Faust2D]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The history of the first half of the 20th century is astounding, and when you compare just about anything then (aside from technology) to today, modern life pales in comparison. The primary difference was that back then, mass media served to elevate culture, not to stoop to its level and in so doing hold it back. I believe the internet provides an opportunity for a return to a vital popular culture. But as long as young people can't recognize a vital creative culture looks like when they see it, and they don't see a value in it, it isn't likely to happen.

Care to provide specific examples from Jazz music? This all sounds like complete hearsay to me.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Contrast that with the attitude of Miles or Mingus, which was more like, "I'm here to play. You paid your money to listen, so shut up."

True story... A friend of mine was at a stop light in Beverly Hills and a beautiful Mercedes convertible pulls up next to him. My buddy has long blonde hair... kind of a surfer type. In any case, he looks over and sitting there in the convertible at the wheel is Miles Davis. My friend is in total awe. Miles glances over and my buddy smiles at him. Miles scowls and the light turns green and they drive away. That night my friend turns on the Carson show and there is Miles. He's telling Johnny about the way people in Beverly Hills look at him and grin, saying to themselves, "What's that negro doing in that fancy car?" My buddy was the only one who knew what Miles was talking about, and he was the only one who knew Miles was full of ****.

WWLD? (What would Louis do?)

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faust2D /img/forum/go_quote.gif Care to provide specific examples from Jazz music? This all sounds like complete hearsay to me.

Check out this post on my blog. It's aimed at young animators, but it's sure to make you mad too...

ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive: Tangent: Live The Fabulous Lifestyle Of A Hollywood Cartoonist

Or hear Basie reminisce about the 20s...
late night coffee shops: Out Of Time: Count Basie

See ya
Steve