-
11/13/2011 10:47:00 PM
So true. "Jazz Muzos are themselves killing the genre, by saying nothing, but saying it very fast and in the most complex manner they can invent. That is why rappers can take their work and make money with it, but they can't themselves. Or like how the great Frank Zappa could make millions by combining the best of all worlds with a sense of fun. As the Joker said, "Why so serious?"
-
10/21/2011 4:41:00 PM
Thanks for validating and putting into words the way I've felt for a long time, Branford. I really loved the work you did with Sting, and respected you for having the balls to step out of the straight ahead idiom to do it.
-
10/02/2011 12:01:00 AM
i am the audience as well as another player. I am another voice, I can very well be the next person who purchases an album and pays your bills. the point is, does it matter? We're talking about an artform for the masses, unless you believe that Jazz really is only for a select crowd?
-
Maelongo 09/29/2011 8:58:00 AM
Who are YOU dude? What have you done?
-
Maelongo 09/28/2011 8:06:00 PM
@ Nolan Greene : who are you dude? What have you done?
-
09/26/2011 6:33:00 AM
you know what i find to be true? people often accuse others of negative aspects they see in themselves
-
09/26/2011 6:07:00 AM
"They describe it in physical terms, in visceral terms, but never in musical terms." so i ask... what's "virtuosic self-indulgence" exactly?
-
09/26/2011 6:04:00 AM
"So, you know, my whole thing is, is it good? I don't care if it's new. There's so little of it that's actually good, that when it's good, it shocks me." whats good, your decision?
-
09/26/2011 6:02:00 AM
"My job is to write songs that have emotional meaning "to me"". and the listeners job is to take whatever the hell they want from it, unless youd rather your music only ever be PLAYED "to you"
-
Nate Lucas 09/23/2011 5:48:00 PM
Amen. Almost all of the guys playing play for other musicians and themselves. That's why there are no jazz hit records anymore. Musicians better wake up fast.
-
09/22/2011 5:04:00 AM
I agree for the most part. I am often intrigued, sometimes impressed, and occasionally deeply moved by today's original jazz, but I have to concentrate quite hard and often give them the benefit of the doubt - coming to the show, sitting through the show, and trying hard to find something to connect to. Frequently I'll sit through a whole 2-hour show to be rewarded with just a moment or two of transcendence, but often I don't even get that. Yet when I put on an old record by Herbie, I often get a kick from the first note to the last. The swing is so warm and inviting that I don't have to try to like it, I just like it naturally. I wish today's jazz were a little more like that.
-
09/21/2011 8:36:00 PM
I think you miss the point. A lot. Branford is right that the average music listener doesn't know what they're listening to, in the mechanical sense. They couldn't tell you why the chord changes to Beatles tunes are so interesting. They couldn't tell you why Giant Steps is such an achievement in modern music. But they can tell you that they like or don't like it, and can put it into terms that they understand. That might be insulting to hear, but it IS the truth. At least he had the balls to say it.
And should it not be his job to write songs that have emotional meaning to him first and foremost? One thing that I personally hate about jazz these days is the reliance on 60, 70 and 80 year old songs that are devoid of an emotional connection to the 20 or 30 year old playing them. A lot of times, it ends up sounding like robotic cocktail music...a lot of which gets played, by the way, because of the deep harmonic content. So, yeah, give me the stuff with great melodies that people hear and immediately get excited about, whether or not the chord changes are a challenge to play over. You can always practice at home.
-
09/20/2011 11:13:00 PM
Forget your chops, play for the people.
-
09/20/2011 9:41:00 PM
Anything that gets taken over by a bunch of nerds is going to end up sucking, fact.
-
09/20/2011 1:59:00 PM
@William: There are plenty of characters in creative improvisation/free jazz/avant garde. Some of them are still pretty rooted in jazz, too.
-
gagrad97 09/19/2011 6:24:00 PM
I think some people missed Branford's point about people not knowing shit about music. I don't think he's trying to disparage anyone with this comment. He's simply pointing it out as a fact that is true and always will be true. I am a musician with two college degrees in music but I understand that when I play in a symphony orchestra only a tiny percentage of the audience may have ever studied music on an academic level. The most satisfying performances I have ever had are when the music transcends the need for academic knowledge. If the only way to appreciate a composition or performance is to delve into some serious analysis and appreciate it merely for its complexity it's probably not going to reach any kind of audience. And if your music has no audience it simply isn't going to survive. No one should have to sit down and listen to a lecture on why a piece of music is great in order for them to appreciate it. The level of quality in any piece of art or music should be mostly self-evident. I find most new jazz and orchestral music (outside of film scores) to be very lacking in emotional depth or content. But that is the self-evident quality audiences will always connect with.
-
09/19/2011 2:21:00 PM
I like that you distinctly say "smart jazz musicians" as opposed to "good jazz musicians. This is a very important point. The jazz musicians that make the most money are the ones who have either been picked up by a major record label, such as Joshua Redman, or are the ones that have been able to most intelligently market themselves, such as Wynton Marsalis, speaking of Branford's family.
Why is Wynton so successful? Because he presents the music in a way that "lay people" who don't "know shit about music" can enjoy it. Wynton's utmost concern is connecting with an audience, and he does everything within his power to do that. I don't know that playing in a certain way will direct cash flow because changing your playing based on popularity seems a little fake; however, I do believe that jazz musicians as a whole could stand to learn a thing or two about marketing and promotion.
-
09/19/2011 2:11:00 PM
Unfortunately, I don't think that this is the solution. It's merely a temporary fix until the jazz world at large finds something better to do about its waning popularity. Finding new and creative ways to present new and creative music is what's going fix the problem permanently. It was figured out back in the 20s and has slowly been forgotten since then.
As a jazz musician myself, I wouldn't necessarily be pissed at you for not wanting to promote my original music. I would merely label your ability as limited. If you can't find a way to effectively promote *any* kind of jazz, regardless of whether standards are involved or not, then how good are you at your job? If you can only promote standards, then you're less of a jazz promoter and more of a jazz historian. This is another problem with jazz today. It's stuck in the past and refuses to take a look around itself to see what else is happening in the music industry.
-
09/19/2011 2:04:00 PM
You're probably right, he would. However, as anyone who has ever seen Branford can attest to, he has a way of connecting with the audience regardless of what he's playing. I don't know that any concert promoter would be opposed to Branford playing a set of his original music.
-
09/19/2011 2:03:00 PM
What's wrong with audiences? A failing education system in America. However, I don't expect Branford to be running for elected office anytime soon. Instead, he's using his clout elsewhere to try to bring about some differences. Read Everett Martin's reply below, and he answers this question in a much more succinct way than I ever could.
-
09/19/2011 2:00:00 PM
And this is part of the problem with jazz. People like Lady Gaga because of the stunts that she pulls. Granted, if all jazz musicians did that, the music would cease to mean anything; however, jazz musicians could at least learn a few things from it. In his book "The Savvy Musician", David Cutler talks about how most classical and jazz musicians spend 90% of their time on the music and 10% on the business end; whereas, most pop musicians (and their record labels) spend 10% of their time on the music and 90% on the business end. Obviously, neither works very well. Cutler recommends finding a 50-50 balance, and I think there's not a better recommendation out there.
-
adb 09/19/2011 3:44:00 AM
Not sure what press Branford is referring to here...seems to me by "new" they usually mean popular, like "has a DJ" or use of a currently popular tune.
The part about melody is interesting, especially in lieu of focusing on harmony, seems like this is what Ornette Coleman and some of the free jazz musicians of his era were focusing on.
And frankly that particular genre ("free jazz"), which I am sure is STILL referred to as "new", actually seems to have many practitioners currently focusing on melody and melodic gestures as opposed to clever harmonies and complicated melodies.(others STILL doing wall of sound as well)
I feel as though Jazz does need to enter a Post Modern era, where new doesn't mean complicated or breaking musicological ground (ie..new harmonic schema's etc), but instead embraces the anything goes (including a beautiful melody!) landscape that fine art has reached and that jazz seems built to thrive in.
-
09/18/2011 10:08:00 PM
"Lay people" don't "know shit about music," unlike priests like Marsalis. What the ignorant masses can do, however, is collectively spend a lot of money, and smart jazz musicians will play in a way that directs some of that cash flow in their direction. It also helps if, despite knowing so much about jazz, you confirm the prejudices of those who subscribe to the stereotype of the "self-absorbed" jazz musician, whose listening habits are apparently dictated by harmonic theory. And then, to show how "real" you are, throw in the "f" word a few times.
"My job is to write songs that have emotional meaning to me." Deep. Does such eloquence run in the family?
Dr. Billy Taylor, how we miss you!
-
Dom 09/18/2011 6:09:00 PM
You may be right Rick, except if you hired Branford he would probably play only original music or a jazz standard that some people may or may not recognize
-
Rick 09/18/2011 4:55:00 PM
Bravo! Branford hits the "jazz" nail right on it's narrow-minded and flat head. As a concert promoter in a small but very culturally focused city (St. Pete, Fl), I promote jazz concerts. I recently offended a very good saxophonist when he asked me to promote him in concert performing his original pieces. My response was "I would do so, only if most of the tunes were tunes that my audience could recognize, i.e. Autumn Leaves, Just Friends, So What, Bye-Bye Blackbird, Straight, No Chaser, Misty, What's New, Caravan, St. Thomas, etc. He was pissed, and I haven't heard from him since.
Many members of my audience say they "know" jazz, but they really only know the tunes that they like and enjoy listening to. Most don't analyze or hear things that blow their minds putting them in that so-called mellow mood. I always request my "jazz" musicians to include tunes from the Great American Song Book. In that way, I can be sure that my audience will enjoy at least 50% of the concert, and there's a good chance they'll return to another concert. If I allow the so-called heavy original music to be performed during the entire concert, I'm apt to lose customer(s). As difficult as it is today, to get folks out to jazz concerts, I simply cannot afford to take the chance allowing a musician to play his own personal music for the entire concert.
-
Mop 09/18/2011 3:16:00 AM
The last two paragraphs contradict each other, but I agree with the idea in the latter. Artists express what they feel, and shouldn't try to get into the heads of their audience to "give them what they want." Artistic integrity is pretty easy to detect, even for an uneducated and/or unappreciative audience.
-
Dom 09/18/2011 12:08:00 AM
Branford is right about many things, but the question is, is it, what's wrong with jazz or maybe it might be, what's wrong with the listening audiences? It seems to me, no matter how great or bad a player or the music is, some audiences don't know or understand or appreciate it because they don't know how to listen. Artistically this country is somewhere in the backwoods of no-where.
Unless it has smoke or foul language or is so visual that you can't help but notice most people don't care. At least in classical music, the audiences have somewhat of an education of the music and how much work is put into performing it. In jazz, that doesn't happen. A great artist like Branford wasn't born overnight, he studied and practiced and learned with a lust for the music he plays and when he performs that comes out and sometimes that's all you need because in this day and age it's a toss up who likes or dislikes the music. So I say, there is nothing wrong with jazz, it;s what's wrong with us?
-
Luba L 09/17/2011 10:27:00 PM
Branford...maybe the problem will stop once you move on from segregating 'normal people that know no shit about real music' and 'real musicians'?...just a thought....
-
09/17/2011 7:57:00 PM
I like what I like based on how it makes me feel. Thank you Branford.
-
William 09/17/2011 6:45:00 PM
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny."
Whatever happened to the true characters of jazz? Charley Parker nodding off on stage from the shot of smack he took before the show. Thelonious Monk's stage antics, Miles Davis with his back to the crowd, Mingus in the psychiatric ward with Bobby Fisher, Sonny Rollins playing on the Brooklyn Bridge, Cecil Taylor's hour-long piano bashing, the list goes on. Today's "jazz" musicians might as well be classical players. They study and copy to death the music that came before them. I remember a time when being a "jazz cat" had terrible connotations. Its the last thing any parent wanted to see their kids become. Now its just another career choice.
-
Tammy L Hall 09/17/2011 5:46:00 PM
Finally! Thank You Branford!
-
Jean-Pierre Garau 09/16/2011 7:56:00 AM
Branford is a man of color!
-
09/15/2011 7:58:00 PM
Thing is, I think Brandford's whole point is that an un-discerning mass audience isn't a problem, it's just reality. It's like a gardener complaining about having to work with green things all the time. Yes, he can uproot a whole yard to remove everything green, but he's probably better off learning to like the colour, or finding another career path.
-
Arthurstone 09/14/2011 8:36:00 PM
Interesting.
Sure there is too much jazz which is more than a bit tedious. Lots of jazz navels have received far too much gazing. No question about that.
But there are lots of musicians making very fresh, accessible music who should be more widely known. In a perfect world Bill Frisell would receive the attention a band like Pearl Jam gets. Brian Blade would tour with his own group more than occasionally and Charles Lloyd would appear on late nite TV when he has a new album.
But it doesn't work that way.
The bigger problem is an undiscerning audience. That the distinction between 'artist' and 'audience' is pretty much eliminated in far too much pop music is not necessarily a good thing. Audiences too often respond to musicians merely because they, quite rightly, believe they themselves could likely clamber on stage and do just about as well. And they're right.
Musicianship is unappreciated. 'Authenticity' is key. And, sadly, the more indistinguishable from their audience the 'artist' remains, the more 'authentic' the musical experience.
