What shall we call it?

[Cem]

Ken Vandermark's thoughts on how to proceed:
http://www.pcah.us/posts/189_questions_of_practice_with_ken_vandermark_is_jazz_dead

[walto]

You mean Ken Vandermark, one of the luckiest men in the history of the world? That Ken Vandermark?

[Cem]

Is that a dig about the McArthur grant? Whatever you may think of his luck or playing, you can't argue with all the good he's done for the scene. He works his ass off and does so much for the other artists around him. Regardless, he has earned the right to comment on how left of centre music is unjustly pushed further to the fringes, don't you think, Walter?

[pig pen]

I may be a bit naive about this issue, but isn't he giving the jazz purists a bit more power than they really have?

[moldyfigg]

Jazz isn't dead, but as you know, to me jazz stopped developing anything interesting about 1965. A few soloists since fit my moldy mould, but as far as anything remotely new or exciting that was what I consider jazz, it ain't happened.

[Cem]

I may be a bit naive about this issue, but isn't he giving the jazz purists a bit more power than they really have?

Depending where and which organization you are talking about, I guess. But I agree with him for the most part. Many jazz festivals near here (Toronto, Montreal) support mainstream jazz and large pop acts. Montreal, at least, has a strong presence of creative music in the form of Suoni per il Popolo Festival. Vancouver, Victo, Guelph often offer a healthy mix. Toronto offers zilch in the way of anything left of centre. How many million people need to live in a metropolis, before its jazz fest includes more recent developments in jazz, meaning the last fifty years?! Toronto's population is over 6 million, I believe. Isn't it reasonable to assume that, say, one percent of one percent may be interested in said music? I think that might be a conservative enough figure. Shouldn't the festival serve those 600 tax payers' interest as well as the rest? I'm not really that excited about festivals, actually. I wish that music could be an integral part of daily life on an ongoing basis. But even on this musical orgy front, the folks with the dough make these decisions and they're not interested in accepting the fact that jazz encompasses much more than dixieland to bop or whatever. So, Ken's argument is valid in not wanting to waste energy fighting a hopeless battle, instead accept what he practices to be other music and play in a variety of settings, including many outside the jazz infrastructure.

[Cem]

Jazz isn't dead, but as you know, to me jazz stopped developing anything interesting about 1965. A few soloists since fit my moldy mould, but as far as anything remotely new or exciting that was what I consider jazz, it ain't happened.

As you probably know, Clint, you and I differ on that. But I'm curious, who are those soloists?

[moldyfigg]

Off the top of my head, Grace Kelly, Gerald Clayton, Trombone Charlie, Matt Williams, Liberty Ellman, Julian Pressley, Claire Daly. . .


That's players who I have seen and heard.

[Cem]

Off the top of my head, Grace Kelly, Gerald Clayton, Trombone Charlie, Matt Williams, Liberty Ellman, Julian Pressley, Claire Daly. . .


That's players who I have seen and heard.

I'm not aware of some of those folks. Thanks.

[pig pen]

Depending where and which organization you are talking about, I guess. But I agree with him for the most part. Many jazz festivals near here (Toronto, Montreal) support mainstream jazz and large pop acts. Montreal, at least, has a strong presence of creative music in the form of Suoni per il Popolo Festival. Vancouver, Victo, Guelph often offer a healthy mix. Toronto offers zilch in the way of anything left of centre. How many million people need to live in a metropolis, before its jazz fest includes more recent developments in jazz, meaning the last fifty years?! Toronto's population is over 6 million, I believe. Isn't it reasonable to assume that, say, one percent of one percent may be interested in said music? I think that might be a conservative enough figure. Shouldn't the festival serve those 600 tax payers' interest as well as the rest? I'm not really that excited about festivals, actually. I wish that music could be an integral part of daily life on an ongoing basis. But even on this musical orgy front, the folks with the dough make these decisions and they're not interested in accepting the fact that jazz encompasses much more than dixieland to bop or whatever. So, Ken's argument is valid in not wanting to waste energy fighting a hopeless battle, instead accept what he practices to be other music and play in a variety of settings, including many outside the jazz infrastructure.

Ah, I guess I was reading it as being about the "academic jazz" side of things (where if you aren't making the changes, you aren't playing jazz). I see the festival problem as a different thing that is only tangential to jazz at all. I see that as the creeping profit-orientation that is pervading a lot non-profit organizations. We have that problem here with our small festival where the justification is that we need to put on shows by (some big-name pop act) in order to be able to bring in the more obscure artists (strangely, we don't seem to be getting much of that at all anymore). The danger is that the organization loses its mission and ends up being something very different. The people involved are generally well-meaning but don't think about the consequences of chasing profits at the expense of their mission. This also happens with charities where they start out with a mission to serve some segment of society and through chasing grant money end up with their energies focused on some government department (or corporate) agenda which generally does not help their supposed constituency. My wife has published and continues to work on research in this area (and I tend to be the sounding board for ideas so it's top of mind for me).

It's surprising that Toronto doesn't have more going on since they do seem to have an active community of improvising musicians (one of whom moved down here recently). He talks about having on-going improv gigs etc when he was "up there", not so much here.

[moldyfigg]

Hamp's fest was one of the best. The Playboy is a joke.

[bluenoter]

Hamp's fest was one of the best. The Playboy is a joke.

What is "Hamp's fest," and when was it one of the best?

Do you mean the Lionel Hampton Jazz Festival at the University of Idaho, which was still taking place as of February 2014 and apparently will take place again in February 2015?

[moldyfigg]

Yep, that's the one. Not as many players, but good ones and the crowds are more manageable.

Actually Monterey was the best, way back when.

[bluenoter]

Hamp's fest was one of the best.

Actually Monterey was the best, way back when.

Thanks, Clint, but what's with the "was"? Were you saying that those two fests have declined or just that it's been a while since you had a chance to check them out? The latter, I'd guess.

[moldyfigg]

Rita - Right, on the second assumption.

These days if it's more than 1/2 hour drive, I won't be there.

For about 15 years there was a West Coast Jazz Party in Irvine with about 60 top mainstream players. The aging, diminishing fans finally couldn't support the party. Joe Rothman and John McLean promoted it. They still run a once a week summer show in Newport Beach, same players, but one at a time.

[Cem]

Ah, I guess I was reading it as being about the "academic jazz" side of things (where if you aren't making the changes, you aren't playing jazz). I see the festival problem as a different thing that is only tangential to jazz at all. I see that as the creeping profit-orientation that is pervading a lot non-profit organizations. We have that problem here with our small festival where the justification is that we need to put on shows by (some big-name pop act) in order to be able to bring in the more obscure artists (strangely, we don't seem to be getting much of that at all anymore). The danger is that the organization loses its mission and ends up being something very different. The people involved are generally well-meaning but don't think about the consequences of chasing profits at the expense of their mission. This also happens with charities where they start out with a mission to serve some segment of society and through chasing grant money end up with their energies focused on some government department (or corporate) agenda which generally does not help their supposed constituency. My wife has published and continues to work on research in this area (and I tend to be the sounding board for ideas so it's top of mind for me).

It's surprising that Toronto doesn't have more going on since they do seem to have an active community of improvising musicians (one of whom moved down here recently). He talks about having on-going improv gigs etc when he was "up there", not so much here.

Yes, you're probably right, he is probably referring to Lincoln Centre crowd and some academics, those who accept jazz only when being played with changes. I may be projecting here… but I'd say that he is also talking about festivals and venues to play being essential to the survival of the music and it being embraced by large numbers. That whole thing goes hand in hand with academic and institutional umph…

I'd love to pick your and your wife's brain about good ways (if at all possible) to put a healthy non-profit board together. I've been avoiding it for a decade and a half, but, in a way, it's inescapable.

Btw, I don't remember whom, but recently I ran into or read about a Toronto expat I know replanted out East.
I am not crazy about the improvising scene in Toronto, some kind of glue is lacking and it's not a particularly distinct sound. Vancouver and Montreal scenes were pretty healthy with distinct sounds.

[walto]

Cem says:

[Vandermark] has earned the right to comment on how left of centre music is unjustly pushed further to the fringes, don't you think, Walter?

Absolutely. I have nothing against the guy (I never met him, though I used to chat with his dad at gigs occasionally), and I think everybody has a right to his or her opinion--whatever his/her level of luck. I wasn't intending to imply anything--positive or negative--about his views about jazz or his character.

I was just noting that he's a very lucky man. It is admirable to put good fortune to good use.

[pig pen]

Yes, you're probably right, he is probably referring to Lincoln Centre crowd and some academics, those who accept jazz only when being played with changes. I may be projecting here… but I'd say that he is also talking about festivals and venues to play being essential to the survival of the music and it being embraced by large numbers. That whole thing goes hand in hand with academic and institutional umph…

Yeah, I suppose in the end the why's aren't as important as the fact that there are limited opportunities to hear (and play) improvised music (that's what I've started calling the music).

I'd love to pick your and your wife's brain about good ways (if at all possible) to put a healthy non-profit board together. I've been avoiding it for a decade and a half, but, in a way, it's inescapable.

It's not complicated conceptually, but it gets challenging in practice. You just have to clearly define what you are about, get a good group of people who understand what the organization is about and who won't let it drift then every time a decision is to be made regarding funding be sure that the money isn't costing the organization too much in terms of it's mission.

Btw, I don't remember whom, but recently I ran into or read about a Toronto expat I know replanted out East.
I am not crazy about the improvising scene in Toronto, some kind of glue is lacking and it's not a particularly distinct sound. Vancouver and Montreal scenes were pretty healthy with distinct sounds.

I suppose that is Toronto in a nutshell isn't it? I've always found that it's a city without a distinct personality like Montreal or Vancouver.

Evan Shaw (alto sax) is the guy that I've come to know who is now in the Fredericton area. He was originally from here before going off to music school etc and ending up in TO. His influences seem to come from Braxton and I've always heard some Threadgill in his approach. This is the only video I could find with him in it (in Toronto of course):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g4JPkvD1ns

[Ron Thorne]

Thanks for this thread, which is one solid reason why I feel so strongly about this little board continuing to chug along and make a contribution ... no matter how small it may be. Civil discourse on a subject about which we're passionate is a beautiful thing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klXiDUrXuUE

[Cem]

...

I'd love to pick your and your wife's brain about good ways (if at all possible) to put a healthy non-profit board together. I've been avoiding it for a decade and a half, but, in a way, it's inescapable.

It's not complicated conceptually, but it gets challenging in practice. You just have to clearly define what you are about, get a good group of people who understand what the organization is about and who won't let it drift then every time a decision is to be made regarding funding be sure that the money isn't costing the organization too much in terms of it's mission.

Btw, I don't remember whom, but recently I ran into or read about a Toronto expat I know replanted out East.
I am not crazy about the improvising scene in Toronto, some kind of glue is lacking and it's not a particularly distinct sound. Vancouver and Montreal scenes were pretty healthy with distinct sounds.

I suppose that is Toronto in a nutshell isn't it? I've always found that it's a city without a distinct personality like Montreal or Vancouver.

Evan Shaw (alto sax) is the guy that I've come to know who is now in the Fredericton area. He was originally from here before going off to music school etc and ending up in TO. His influences seem to come from Braxton and I've always heard some Threadgill in his approach. This is the only video I could find with him in it (in Toronto of course):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g4JPkvD1ns

re: non-profits
I'd like to figure out the right personality balance. Everyone needs to be totally committed to the cause and working together toward the same goal. It needs to stay on the smaller side to stay healthy, creative music requires a healthy, diy, small scale vibe, imo. Where art and finance meet is an ugly place. Part of me likes many of the pros of the dictatorship option… but too many downfalls.
re: video
Nice playing. I like Colin Fisher a lot. I got to hear him a few times… Not the Wind Not the Flag is a fantastic project!

[Cem]

Cem says:

[Vandermark] has earned the right to comment on how left of centre music is unjustly pushed further to the fringes, don't you think, Walter?

Absolutely. I have nothing against the guy (I never met him, though I used to chat with his dad at gigs occasionally), and I think everybody has a right to his or her opinion--whatever his/her level of luck. I wasn't intending to imply anything--positive or negative--about his views about jazz or his character.

I was just noting that he's a very lucky man. It is admirable to put good fortune to good use.

Sorry, Walto, I misunderstood… I'm forever defending Ken, who needs no defending. I think, that he's lucky to have found his calling, first and foremost. I envy that the most about him. He's got so many things on the go.

[Cem]

Thanks for this thread, which is one solid reason why I feel so strongly about this little board continuing to chug along and make a contribution ... no matter how small it may be. Civil discourse on a subject about which we're passionate is a beautiful thing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klXiDUrXuUE

Thank you for the great forum, Ron! Without it, tough to have the discourse. Nice video, too!

[Ron Thorne]

My pleasure to provide both, Cem.

[wdavis]

I'm not sure I can agree with a lot of what Ken says in that short piece. I wonder if they caught him on a bad day as he's not a negative guy in my brief interactions with him.

Anyway, I think he's reasonably spot on at the start although I agree with the comment that he's granting too much power to the "jazz establishment." But, yes, starting in the mid-60s or so, there's been a tendency to "institutionalize" jazz in a manner similar to classical music -- the explosion in jazz music programs at universities, the various jazz grant sources, taking jazz out of the clubs (which were dying for another set of reasons anyway) into the concert hall. I don't want to downplay what those efforts achieved -- they may well have helped jazz survive the very rocky period of the late 60s and 70s and who can really object to a kid learning composition and instrumental technique at uni, not to mention all the jobs that generated for jazz musicians.

Sure, institutionalization inevitably leads to some ossification. That ossification though makes institutions immobile and eventually irrelevant unless they find a way to reinvigorate themselves.

But I think he pushes the "marketed as a style", "dead as a language" bit too far. No matter what one might think of Vijay Iyer, Jason Moran, Robert Glasper, etc. (or Dave Holland, Wayne Shorter, Charles Lloyd if you want older names) I don't know how you could think they are limiting themselves to a dead language and not engaging the music as a creative form.

And yeah, it gives too much power to the JALC types. Sure, they offer a lot of concerts packaged for upper middle class "arts consumers." Whoop-de-doo -- that's about as relevant to how jazz is defined/viewed as Ella's cover of "Sunshine of your Love." Sure, if you want access to that world you're gonna have to play some politics ... so don't access that world.

But mainly I find it odd in that, much as I like his music, respect the man and love what he's done for the scene ... Vandermark is basically the Wynton of the "avant-garde." His various regular bands are usually pretty tightly defined in terms of approach, sound, style. What else is the Free Jazz Classics series other than the recognition of a tradition -- and continuing the misnaming of a set of compositions as "free jazz"? Free Fall was formed as a bit of an hommage to the Giuffre 3. I've seen a few V5 shows where most songs were head-solo-head including one where I'd swear the solo order was the same on every tune. I was at a performance of another of the groups he's responsible for where a couple of the musicians told me they'd held a bit of a closed door session where they said they were tired of playing all this composed/structured stuff (band/musician names withheld since I assume this was told to me in confidence).

And, of course as noted, he received a lot of money from one of those ossified institutions, gets a reasonable number of (mainly European) gigs at government-subsidized festivals/concerts, etc. Intentional or not, he is a "polite, good-looking, safe" option for those institutions looking to be a bit edgy.

Ken is many things including an outstanding musician and composer but a truly groundbreaking musical rebel he is not. He is working very much in a set of traditions with roots that go 40-60 years back. That these styles are under-recognized by the establishment doesn't make them any more or less dead as a language than any other jazz tradition.

It's fine in its way. Pretty much any innovative jazz musician, going back to at least Ellington, has occasionally expressed discomfort with being pigeon-holed as "jazz." Musicians/composers pretty much always view their specific music as individualistic. Ellington played Ellington without concern for whether he was in a tradition or not. Shorter plays Shorter, Iyer plays Iyer and Vandermark plays Vandermark. But for those of us with a bit more "objective" view of their music, it's not hard to see how they fit into the jazz styles. By almost anybody's understanding of the term, Vandermark is a jazz musician (whether he happens to be one you like or not).

Now if it's true that the next Ellington feels like he needs to limit him/herself to some pre-defined tradition in order to be a "jazz musician" then indeed there's a problem.

[Cem]

Thank you for the thoughtful response, wdavis. I would agree to some degree with your assessment of Vandermark by adapting Branford Marsalis' quote about his brother, which applies to Vandermark: He is good for jazz (which to me includes free-jazz/creative/improvised music), period! Beyond that, I don't see any reason to discuss the "edginess" of Ken's work in this context, because his remarks above are more to do with, how half-century old (and further/since) developments in jazz are mostly still not recognized as being a part of what the art form has become and as it continues to evolve. In a perfect world, genres would be meaningless, but at the very least, jazz would encompass all of the natural developments, that should be associated with its evolution. So, it does make sense for an artist to focus his/her energies on the work, rather than its appropriate placement in the cubby holes.

Btw, happy birthday to KV!