I'm not quite sure why so many jazz musicians have such a hard time connecting with audiences. Whenever I go out to hear jazz, I'm always struck by how poorly musicians on stage bond with the people who came to hear them. Audiences crave interaction but never seem to get it and often leave disappointed. Either stage musicians stand or sit there expressionless the entire set or they engage in forced banter, often at inaudible levels, making everyone more uncomfortable. Off stage, their communication skills are even more miserable, unable to greet fans or carry on a few lines of conversation. [Pictured: Sensors by Pat Brassington, 2010]
Post-war jazz has always strained under dual masters. For the music to connect with audiences, it has to be deeply personal, internal and sensitive. But for the music to earn money and pay bills, it has to reach more and more people who will find it worthy, which requires charisma and entertainment skills. Most jazz artists get the first part. The second part? Not so much. [Photo of Thelonious Monk by Herb Snitzer]
All of this non-communicative, too-cool-for-school attitude by jazz artists probably dates back to Thelonious Monk in the late 1940s. But Monk could get away with it. He was exceptional, and audiences had already been weaned on jazz-influenced music. Today, treating audiences as though they aren't there compromises a musician's ability to earn. Times have changed. Audiences want to see musicians excited by what they're doing. Audiences want to feel a connection to the artist, they want to be part of the experience. Rock and soul musicians have always understood this and have benefited from being expressive. [Photo by William Klein]
In today's day and age, when everyone's personal information is all over the web and people talk all day by email and text, jazz musicians must train themselves to be more personable and react with emotion to what they're doing. The days of the surly stage genius and mum musician are over. Musicians who don't think being expressive on stage is their role shouldn't then whine that rock, pop, r&b and every other form of music receives more dollars and attention. Your audience is your income. The more you put in, the more you'll get out. It's really that simple.
Coltrane, Monk and Rollins. Filmmaker Bret Primack, in support of a new series of CDs from Concord Records, has put together a clip that looks at the special qualities of John Coltrane, Thelonious Monk and Sonny Rollins...
Oddball album cover of the week. Yes, here's another one of those enormously inventive trio album cover designs for Red Norvo. Others in the re-issue series included three kittens in socks hanging on a clothesline and three newborns being delivered by a stork. Looks like the art director here in the TV era decided to give up cute and opt for action.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e008dca1f088340133f36fa9bf970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sunday Wax Bits:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Great points about audience interaction, Marc (and the picture of Pops was profound without even calling attention to it). And regarding Monk being the start of the too-cool school, the man got up, danced, spun around in circles and looked completely immersed in his music while audience members couldn't take their eyes off him...showmanship!
Monk probably realized that verbal communication wasn't his strong suit, and made up for it with interesting hats and dancing. Miles got lots of bad press for turning around or leaving the stage when not playing, but it just fed into his mystique. Besides he would only have looked silly dancing to Coltrane's solos. Dizzy, an extrovert, got good mileage from clowning on stage, but it wouldn't have worked for Miles. Playing serious jazz requires intense concentration, and for most trying to put on a pop-style stage act at the same time would be a major distraction. Traditionally, classical music concerts didn't involve a single spoken word, and audiences didn't expect it. A perfunctory bow, and maybe an occasional hair toss from the soloist, were all that were required. Talking to the audience is good, and many jazz artists are adept at humorous banter (James Moody, Marvin Stamm, etc.) However music is a much more intense and intimate form of communication, and audiences looking for more superficial entertainment aren't likely to seek out jazz concerts in the first place. I remember seeing a few minutes of a Dave Koz performance on television. He was performing an elaborate sexual pantomime with the bassist and the audience probably loved it, but musically nothing was happening. So yes, stage presentation is important, but when it gets in the way of the music it's only making jazz more irrelevant.
While I fully agree that jazz musicians should communicate effectively with/entertain audiences, I'm pleased to report that nowadays here in the UK my experience is that these qualities are admirably present in players. I've just returned from an afternoon gig by trombone virtuoso Mark Nightingale with a very talented regional outfit, the Swingshift Big Band, where the wit and repartee was of the highest calibre. In no way is this untypical and I would particularly single out saxophonist Alan Barnes in this respect. Yes, when I went to hear jazz 50 years ago, things were more formal, particularly from the "modern" school, but even then there were exceptions, such as the late Ronnie Scott, whose humour never lagged behind his considerable saxophone skills.
"Either stage musicians stand or sit there expressionless the entire set or they engage in forced banter, often at inaudible levels, making everyone more uncomfortable. Off stage, their communication skills are even more miserable, unable to greet fans or carry on a few lines of conversation." Wait, you were at my gig last night?! You should have said hello!
The fact that The New School Jazz Program has a course in "Stage Presence" is one indication that we educators well recognize that there is a problem.
When I was in the BMI Jazz Composers Workshop, Bob Brookmeyer used to lament the lack of theatricality in many jazz performances--the lack of proper usage of lighting, for example. Though between the studied stiffness of the classical world and the frequent gaucherie of rock gigs, there's a happy medium. In any case, stage presence is a skill that, like many others in life, is acquired gradually over a period of many years. I know that firsthand.
During the Swing revival of the late 90s, we had 5 big swing bands operating out here and all the leaders and vocalists were unfailingly nice to people and fans.....even the one sometimes ornery leader always took time for his fans with a chat or a greeting or a question or a compliment.
Maybe the fact that there were always dancers at these gigs (which were dances) helped to bridge whatever gap may have existed. Happy dancers are easier to gauge than happy listeners.
I've repeatedly noticed what you're talking about re musician's audience interaction and often miserable social skills. Jazz is such expressive music, you would think it would be the other way 'round. Even if the music is serious, that doesn't imply solemn -- and if it is so serious, maybe try to dress better. Just sayin'.
What strikes me most are either missing announcements, or almost inaudible ones. The times are over where most people were familiar with the songs the musicians played.
I can't get it. Okay, we younger cats play our own compositions, but why *not* announce them, if before or after?
And when you're doing this: Raise your voice, and tell the audience what you played, and *who* your band members are. Then, some guys are telling only the first names of the crew, not their last names. I don't get that either. Kindergarten, or what?
I always play a very nice example of the past when meeting musicians at my place:
"And finally on drums: Joe Haynes!" -- Some neat applause, but a tense silence, a pause of very long, embarrassing seconds. -- Then: "Did I say 'Joe'? Well, you know I meant 'Roy'. I didn't mean it, really... And now ladies and gentlemen, to start things off, based on "How High the Moon," here's "Ornithology"..."
"Symphony Sid" Torin at Carnegie Hall, 1949, when he announced Bird's quintet. -- He at least could name the tunes correctly, and knew the rest of the band members, and announced them clearly.
The ideal jazz musician would be a person who was not only a master of his instrument, but also a warm, wonderful human being as well - for me, the personification of this ideal would be Clifford Brown. I'm sure we can all think of musicians who are masters of their craft and good, personable people as well. Unfortunately, the reality is often musicians who are musical wizards but who also have varying degrees of personality defects, from charming eccentricity to bloated egos to personality disorders to outright mental illnesses. It can be a tradeoff. The well-adjusted personality often doesn't lend itself to artistic creativity. The person who has both is rare and doubly gifted.
I was thinking about this after I posted my initial comment, and I remember at least one gig where the musicians were very audience friendly and entertaining even when they weren't playing: A James Carter show I saw at Iridium in NYC probably 11 years ago now. Took my parents to see some jazz while they visited (they were astonished, on getting into the foyer, to see that not only was Les Paul alive, he played there every week!!) Anyway, Carter put on a great show; his kind of jazz isn't my folk's cup of tea but he was so all-round entertaining they really enjoyed themselves (and Carter's ridiculously casual technical mastery of his horn(s) impressed Mom, a musician herself). And he was well dressed.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Marc Myers writes on music for the Wall Street Journal. His book, "Why Jazz Happened," will be published by the University of California Press in December 2012.
Great points about audience interaction, Marc (and the picture of Pops was profound without even calling attention to it). And regarding Monk being the start of the too-cool school, the man got up, danced, spun around in circles and looked completely immersed in his music while audience members couldn't take their eyes off him...showmanship!
Ricky
Posted by: Ricky Riccardi | September 05, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Monk probably realized that verbal communication wasn't his strong suit, and made up for it with interesting hats and dancing. Miles got lots of bad press for turning around or leaving the stage when not playing, but it just fed into his mystique. Besides he would only have looked silly dancing to Coltrane's solos. Dizzy, an extrovert, got good mileage from clowning on stage, but it wouldn't have worked for Miles. Playing serious jazz requires intense concentration, and for most trying to put on a pop-style stage act at the same time would be a major distraction. Traditionally, classical music concerts didn't involve a single spoken word, and audiences didn't expect it. A perfunctory bow, and maybe an occasional hair toss from the soloist, were all that were required. Talking to the audience is good, and many jazz artists are adept at humorous banter (James Moody, Marvin Stamm, etc.) However music is a much more intense and intimate form of communication, and audiences looking for more superficial entertainment aren't likely to seek out jazz concerts in the first place. I remember seeing a few minutes of a Dave Koz performance on television. He was performing an elaborate sexual pantomime with the bassist and the audience probably loved it, but musically nothing was happening. So yes, stage presentation is important, but when it gets in the way of the music it's only making jazz more irrelevant.
Posted by: David | September 05, 2010 at 02:07 PM
While I fully agree that jazz musicians should communicate effectively with/entertain audiences, I'm pleased to report that nowadays here in the UK my experience is that these qualities are admirably present in players. I've just returned from an afternoon gig by trombone virtuoso Mark Nightingale with a very talented regional outfit, the Swingshift Big Band, where the wit and repartee was of the highest calibre. In no way is this untypical and I would particularly single out saxophonist Alan Barnes in this respect. Yes, when I went to hear jazz 50 years ago, things were more formal, particularly from the "modern" school, but even then there were exceptions, such as the late Ronnie Scott, whose humour never lagged behind his considerable saxophone skills.
Posted by: Bill Forbes | September 05, 2010 at 02:30 PM
"Either stage musicians stand or sit there expressionless the entire set or they engage in forced banter, often at inaudible levels, making everyone more uncomfortable. Off stage, their communication skills are even more miserable, unable to greet fans or carry on a few lines of conversation." Wait, you were at my gig last night?! You should have said hello!
Posted by: Ian Carey | September 05, 2010 at 05:05 PM
The fact that The New School Jazz Program has a course in "Stage Presence" is one indication that we educators well recognize that there is a problem.
When I was in the BMI Jazz Composers Workshop, Bob Brookmeyer used to lament the lack of theatricality in many jazz performances--the lack of proper usage of lighting, for example. Though between the studied stiffness of the classical world and the frequent gaucherie of rock gigs, there's a happy medium. In any case, stage presence is a skill that, like many others in life, is acquired gradually over a period of many years. I know that firsthand.
Posted by: Bill Kirchner | September 05, 2010 at 09:14 PM
Interesting.
During the Swing revival of the late 90s, we had 5 big swing bands operating out here and all the leaders and vocalists were unfailingly nice to people and fans.....even the one sometimes ornery leader always took time for his fans with a chat or a greeting or a question or a compliment.
Maybe the fact that there were always dancers at these gigs (which were dances) helped to bridge whatever gap may have existed. Happy dancers are easier to gauge than happy listeners.
Posted by: John P. Cooper | September 05, 2010 at 10:48 PM
"I'll play it and tell you what it is later"- Miles Davis
Posted by: Doug Zielke | September 06, 2010 at 11:38 AM
I've repeatedly noticed what you're talking about re musician's audience interaction and often miserable social skills. Jazz is such expressive music, you would think it would be the other way 'round. Even if the music is serious, that doesn't imply solemn -- and if it is so serious, maybe try to dress better. Just sayin'.
Posted by: TWN | September 07, 2010 at 12:19 PM
... if at all, Doug, if at all!
What strikes me most are either missing announcements, or almost inaudible ones. The times are over where most people were familiar with the songs the musicians played.
I can't get it. Okay, we younger cats play our own compositions, but why *not* announce them, if before or after?
And when you're doing this: Raise your voice, and tell the audience what you played, and *who* your band members are. Then, some guys are telling only the first names of the crew, not their last names. I don't get that either. Kindergarten, or what?
I always play a very nice example of the past when meeting musicians at my place:
"And finally on drums: Joe Haynes!" -- Some neat applause, but a tense silence, a pause of very long, embarrassing seconds. -- Then: "Did I say 'Joe'? Well, you know I meant 'Roy'. I didn't mean it, really... And now ladies and gentlemen, to start things off, based on "How High the Moon," here's "Ornithology"..."
"Symphony Sid" Torin at Carnegie Hall, 1949, when he announced Bird's quintet. -- He at least could name the tunes correctly, and knew the rest of the band members, and announced them clearly.
Posted by: Brew | September 07, 2010 at 08:35 PM
The ideal jazz musician would be a person who was not only a master of his instrument, but also a warm, wonderful human being as well - for me, the personification of this ideal would be Clifford Brown. I'm sure we can all think of musicians who are masters of their craft and good, personable people as well. Unfortunately, the reality is often musicians who are musical wizards but who also have varying degrees of personality defects, from charming eccentricity to bloated egos to personality disorders to outright mental illnesses. It can be a tradeoff. The well-adjusted personality often doesn't lend itself to artistic creativity. The person who has both is rare and doubly gifted.
Posted by: MrBill | September 08, 2010 at 12:40 AM
I was thinking about this after I posted my initial comment, and I remember at least one gig where the musicians were very audience friendly and entertaining even when they weren't playing: A James Carter show I saw at Iridium in NYC probably 11 years ago now. Took my parents to see some jazz while they visited (they were astonished, on getting into the foyer, to see that not only was Les Paul alive, he played there every week!!) Anyway, Carter put on a great show; his kind of jazz isn't my folk's cup of tea but he was so all-round entertaining they really enjoyed themselves (and Carter's ridiculously casual technical mastery of his horn(s) impressed Mom, a musician herself). And he was well dressed.
Posted by: TWN | September 09, 2010 at 07:04 PM