[NewMusic] The Saga Continues. . .

[Henry Kuntz]

Matt, I think what I was trying to create was more like a working postulate
than an argument, i.e. open to hearing more and open to reviision. But I
think I should perhaps remove the "cutting edge" idea from it; or at least
set it aside for the moment. What I think is that the kind of venues that
regularly feature jazz (of any sort) are perhaps more like audience-view
type venues rather than looser, neighborhood environments. I only know that
as long as I've been hearing jazz for the last 30 or so years in all sorts
of places in the Bay Area, most of the time, the audiences were 80-90%
white. (Sometimes, like Cecil Taylor at the Keystone Korner in the early
70s, there wasn't much of anyone there of any color.) It's also interesting
that Archie Shepp many years ago, in recognizing the situation, changed his
whole approach to music, hoping to attract a wider black audience. He went
from playing some kind of African-inspired avant garde jazz to playing
neo-bebop. I'm not sure the stylistic change helped in that respect, though.

-----Original Message-----
From: newmusic-bounces at music.mills.edu
[mailto:newmusic-bounces at music.mills.edu] On Behalf Of Matt Davignon
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 3:59 PM
To: Bay Area New Music Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [NewMusic] The Saga Continues. . .

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
>
_______________________________________________
Bay Area New Music Discussion Group
NewMusic at music.mills.edu
http://music.mills.edu/mailman/listinfo/newmusic