Rebel Without a Pause
In jazz, everyone’s a rebel. Free jazz guys rebel against the economic hegemony of the mainstream, while the straight-ahead guys resent the supposed critical cachet conferred upon the avant-gardists. Composition is a response to improvisation run amok, while improv is a rejoinder to the stodginess of composition. Musicians playing standards consider it a radical act opposing knee-jerk progressivism, while those who play original music see it as a strike against entrenched othodoxy.
The only thing the various factions have in common is that they’re all fighting the power. Of course, no one can agree on who actually holds the power. Even the richest see themselves striking a blow against the longest odds. No one is satisfied with the allotment of power they actually possess.
The greatest players don’t play out as a socio-political statement; they don’t play in as a way of making debating points. The most radical thing an artist can do is to forget about who or what he’s up against, and just concentrate on being himself. That’s the only real source of power.
The true rebels are those artists who understand that the best music carries the least baggage — political, theoretical, or otherwise. Only when divorced from the literal and prosaic can music be truly transcendent.
This may be the most awesome thing I’ve read in a long time. Thank you.
Comment by Andrew Durkin — February 7, 2010 @ 12:36 amAah, an enhancement of chapter 13. America is still a teenage culture with a rebellious youth fetish. It sells stuff. It is fun to see this convergence of conviction that it’s really about being yourself as well as you can and the rest is just noisy posturing which is something better left to clowns like me.
Comment by Chris Rich — February 7, 2010 @ 8:01 amWord.
I have to say, though: I’m encouraged by the jazz-making trends I’m seeing at places like Winter JazzFest and in my strolling and scrolling around the internet. Vijay Iyer, for example, garnered a lot of positive attention for jazz without railing against “the man” — the same could be said of so many artists on the scene today. Although we aren’t still quite past the “Ken Burns Effect,” especially in the writing/critical community, today’s musicians seem to be leading the way toward a “truer” musical aesthetic in the overall jazz culture. Even better, some of them (you included!) are infiltrating the ranks of the superfans who write about this stuff and are moving the dialogue in a much more interesting direction.
Comment by Alex W. Rodriguez — February 7, 2010 @ 11:39 amI am not necessarily opposed to railing against the man. Indeed, I do more than my share. But when I put the horn in my mouth, all that falls away.
I hear a lot of music in which the player is consciously attempting to position himself (stylistically and therefore usually economically) by adhering to a certain preconceived, officially-sanctioned template. Those are usually the musicians for whom a certain style becomes a crusade, whereupon they adopt the mantle of an oppressed minority, even if they are self-evidently a member of the ruling class. It’s the musical equivalent of Rush Limbaugh railing against the liberal elite, or in the olden days, Reagan against the so-called ‘welfare queens.’ There are those with real economic power – in jazz and life – who wield it as a cudgel. When I hear them positioning themselves as the underdog, it makes me sick.
I suppose it’s possible for the truly oppressed to fall in love with their position and base an entire aesthetic around it, but I frankly almost never see it. The underdogs are usually underdogs because they refuse to play the games at which the overdogs are perpetually preoccupied. Such musicians are usually too involved with exploring the content of their imagination to worry about exploring the contents of their bank account. Their passion is real. You can hear it in their music.
If in the act of creation you’re distracted by extra-musical concerns, your music will suffer.
Comment by Chris — February 7, 2010 @ 2:14 pmAmen Chris!
Comment by Jason Parker — February 8, 2010 @ 1:10 pmExcellent post! Only thing I’d like to add is that there’s a difference between truly rebelling against something and justifying what you’re doing by pleading the ‘rebellion clause’ (anything in jazz can be justified if it’s rebellion).
Playing free because you can’t play changes and claiming that you’re rebelling against the ‘economic hegemony of the mainstream’ is just BS — in the same way that playing standards because you’re so jaded that you haven’t got any imagination or passion left to embrace any new music in your life is.
Yes, everyone is jazz may claim to be a rebel, but often the claim doesn’t stand up to examination. I think you’re right, the best music and musicians will always play their kind of music for musical reasons and we should all strive to do the same…
Comment by Barry Dallman — February 9, 2010 @ 3:45 amYour claim that in jazz everyone is a rebel really hits the mark. However, it seems like you create a false dichotomy when you write, “The greatest players don’t play out as a socio-political statement; they don’t play in as a way of making debating points.” Playing out does not have to be a statement, but is it not possible for a musician to play out both because it is a reflection of himself and because doing so also reflects his own socio-political outlook? Max Roach’s Freedom Now Suite was a protest album, but also a great work (though not necessarily an out album. Can’t art and protest dovetail from time to time?
Comment by David — February 9, 2010 @ 8:47 amOne should never say never, that’s true. Ultimately, however, it’s my experience that the greatest music is made for musical reasons, as Barry says.
Comment by Chris — February 10, 2010 @ 8:05 am