[NewMusic] The Saga Continues. . .

[Matt Davignon]

Ok - so what does that lead to?

Is the argument that "cutting edge" jazz lends itself more to
"appreciative" audiences than "participatory" ones? Do the Berkeley
Jazz Fest and Yoshi's aim to be cutting edge as far as Jazz goes? (Not
a rhetorical question - I really don't know.)

Or are you saying that the music series/shows/events that are
frequently reviewed or featured in the Chronicle, by the nature of the
review/critical medium, appeal to one demographic of audience more
than another? As opposed by series that are promoted in other methods,
such as word-of-mouth or poster advertising?

Funny note, I was discussing this article with a co-worker, and he
said something along the lines of "Well, a lot of the people doing
great jazz recently are white. Like Kenny G for example." Dead
serious. My response was a series of 8 or so abstract staccato
syllables spread out over a period of 12 seconds.

Matt


On 6/1/07, Henry Kuntz <Henry.Kuntz at ceb.ucop.edu> wrote:
> Following from my last post, I'll go ahead and open up the can of worms and
> ask: what are the likely reasons that most jazz audiences are white while
> most of the performers are black? I was also asking myself again recently -
> what with articles from my old
> newsletter BELLS - now appearing online, what is the reason that most jazz
> critics have been white?
> I can only come up with this, a tentative notion, that may or may not hold
> up to scrutiny. But I think it may have to do with the fact that jazz,
> growing directly out of the black experience, is in the first instance (for
> blacks, those in the direct line of cultural succession) a primarily
> experiential and participatory form of expression. It is meant to be heard
> close up, with audience give and take, call and response. Whites, on the
> other hand, learn to "appreciate" this expression, thus view it and hear it
> more from the "outside," so are therefore more willing to hear it (as
> "audience" rather than as call-and-response participators  -- like in that
> club in Houston where I heard Arnett Cobb) and who are also more wanting to
> explain and to come to grips with their experience through writing about it.
> And, from this review of the book by Leo Smith that I reviewed many years
> ago:
> "Smith...poses the question of whether creative music (jazz) can even be
> criticized at all; and he replies, 'no, creative music cannot be criticized.
> It not does not require that form of journalism.' On the one hand, he notes
> that - along with the listener - there are any number of environmental
> factors (the temperature, elements of air, contours and shape of the room,
> etc.) that effect the improviser in the act of creation. Secondly, he writes
> that if a creative level of communication is reached between musician and
> listener, then that is enough. 'It can go no further than you-inside-you. It
> is not a music that allows one to use it and still refer to it. If someone
> uses the music - for example, tries to write about how it has 'succeeded' or
> 'failed' or how it was 'not quite there' and how the audience 'reacted' to
> it - they fail (lose) in just that slight moment to bring outside something
> that is inside (for the inside: soul).'"
> So....does any of the above make sense? Maybe partially? I'm not sure. I'm
> writing off the top of my head and thinking about it
> Henry
>
> Leo Smith's book reviewed here:
> http://www.m-etropolis.com/bells/bells-slleb/leo-smith-notes-8-pieces-source
> -a-new-world-music-creative-music/
>
> BELLS here
> http://www.m-etropolis.com/bells/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bay Area New Music Discussion Group
> NewMusic at music.mills.edu
> http://music.mills.edu/mailman/listinfo/newmusic
>