Jazz: Who’s Listening? – THE GIG
Jazz: Who’s Listening? – THE GIG.
As one of the directors of “Icons Among Us : jazz in the present tense,” I am extremely interested in all of the great discussions surrounding the Terry Teachout article “Can Jazz Be Saved?” The fact that his column sparked the many articles i have now read in response to Mr. Teachout, means that more of the general public are being exposed to these issues. I am a longtime fan of Nate Chinen as a writer and am happy i recently came across his new blog “The Gig.” Please read his New York Times article that is referenced in his blog post, “Jazz: Who’s Listening?”
I have plenty of my own opinions i would love to write , however, for this post i want to share the letter written by my co-director and friend Pete Vogt in response to the article to Mr. Teachout.
Dear Mr. Teachout,
As the co-director of a recent Jazz Series “Icons Among Us” (Documentary Channel/Film Fests/Indiepix) I read your article, “Can Jazz Be Saved” (WSJ, 8.9.09) with great interest and amusement. That the conclusions of a “research survey” would suggest that the audience for jazz is in precipitous decline while the age of jazz fans teeters on the brink of geezerhood is in direct contradiction to the experience of myself, my co-directors, my executive producer, and the rest of our production/editing team during the making of “icons.” I’ll even go out on a limb and speak for the tens of thousands of passionate jazz fans we witnessed at sprawling festivals, traditional rock venues, jammed into urban clubs and filling concert halls, since some-or maybe all of them may have missed the various surveys you cite. Maybe they were too busy listening to all the amazing jazz music that “nobody is listening to” to participate!
By classifying jazz exclusively as “high art” seeking highly cultivated ears, the surveyors have fallen into the trap of narrowly defining an art that continues to morph at the speed of sound and subvert in the way any true “American” art form must. The statisticians, by dint of habit, press the “jazz” button and out come the numbers you might expect. Of course you mention Wynton Marsalis in your article because he is one of the few household “Jazz” (capital J) names you could pull out of your hat. My guess is that the statisticians sought Wynton’s advice on how to sort jazz out from “everything else” because that is Wynton’s shtick. If they didn’t seek his advice they were following the logic of the public argument for “what jazz is,” that he has been waging since his aesthetic domination of Ken Burns’ Jazz Series. Wynton is an organizational and instrumental genius who deserves everything he’s got (and I mean that in two very distinct ways). But his power as an ultra conservative culture broker on all things jazz is now an irritating burr under the saddle of every thoughtful jazz musician on the planet.
This may be speculation but my guess is that the “jazz surveyors” had a vision in their heads when they formulated the survey that resulted in a misleading “jazz, yes or no” button. It goes something like this: Jazz players are oldish , jazz players play acoustic instruments only, jazz players wear suits, jazz players play in moldy venues, jazz players are men, jazz players are black, jazz players are all Americans… this stereotypical profile could go on a long while. But you get my point. Maybe the problem with “jazz statistics” is that the profiles statisticians use are so old and worn that they could not possible give an accurate accounting of what is actually going on in the world of jazz.
These stereotypes were useful to us in the production of Icons; mostly because every time we’d dig deeper into the reality of the jazz world, they became more laughable, and the music, by contrast, became a marvelously richer universe of innovation, intelligence, commitment and passion. So, Wynton Maralis- jazz guy? Sure, you can spot the suit a mile away (nice suit too!). But what do you do with Medeski, Martin, and Wood? A grudgingly self described “jazz group” that regularly fills rock clubs? Did they make it into the survey? They made it into our series because they cleave to the heart of what jazz is-improvisational music infused with the power to transform. What do you do with the Bad Plus? Brian Blade and The Fellowship Band? Russell Gunn? What do you do when the brain of the music sounds like Bugge Wesseltoft, the soul sounds like Nick Payton, the nervous system sounds like Bill Frisell and then Soulive comes along and shakes it’s booty all over your survey? This music- which I’m sure was unaccounted for by our graybeard surveyors is more self aware, hip, vital, and creative than almost any pop music you could name. Was the audience for Esperanza Spalding (who, if there is any justice in the world, should cross over like Norah Jones) noted? Or Skerik- the punk jazz shape shifter who might stuff a survey into his saxophone just to see how it sounds?
I guess what I’m getting at is this: jazz has turned an aesthetic corner that musical demographers cannot possible quantify. It cannot be solely described as “high art”- even though the aspirations of these musicians are off the charts. Statisticians should not kid themselves by putting up categorical boundaries to something as alive and elusive as jazz; jazz has snuck, lept, leaked, noodled, grooved, lurched, pounded, and seduced its way into the modern consciousness in a way that surveys could not possible grasp. We, the filmmakers of “Icons Among Us” have the goods to back up the claim.
So, get ready, America, to make over your stodgy preconceptions of what jazz music really is. And, please Mr. Teachout, don’t feel compelled to ask that jazz musicians and promoters act “right now” on their own behalf-they write the book on the subject of right now with every breath they take.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Vogt
