I’m retiring from playing jazz. Well, sort of, anyway. I first actively checked out jazz music and the culture associated with it around the age of 13. I got started listening to what are classified as “fusion” records, which is not so strange for a kid born in 1976. Rock rhythms were certainly more familiar to my ears than swing rhythms, after all. Over the years I found my way to the “straight-ahead” jazz recordings that seemed to be what the jazz scene at large was centered around and talking about. Since those early days of my interest there have been many jazz CDs, records, tapes, mp3s, books, magazines, calendars, discussions, theories, and a healthy dose of live performances and bootlegs.
I guess the truth is that I’m tired of the word “jazz.” I’m not tired of the music, but I’m definitely tired of the people who claim to be able to define what the word means. I’m tired of people arguing about the validity of one person’s playing over another’s when held up against some make believe list of qualities, tests, and unwritten rules. For example, these past two weeks I have been intensely listening to Robert Glasper, Brad Mehldau, Joshua Redman, Fred Hersch, Will Vinson, and Jason Moran. Would anyone like to point out which player is the “best?” I’d certainly hope not as they’re all different. You might have a favorite, but pick the best?
Recently, a small group of people in the jazz spotlight has helped start a cyberspace battle largely over race in jazz. Ben Ratliff (New York Times jazz critic) wrote an article citing four up and coming pianists in New York. Nicholas Payton (trumpeter/composer) called out the article as an example of “institutional racism” because none of the four pianists is African-American. He also plainly stated he’s not calling Ben Ratliff a racist. Ethan Iverson (pianist/composer) wrote a response on his blog that defends Ratliff and attempts to explain institutional racism (soon to be the newest, tired term in the lexicon of faux-intellectual masturbation).
Now the twitter accounts and blog sites of far less talented and busy musicians than Payton and Iverson are alive with little racial digs in either direction and the focus has yet again been shifted away from music to jazz politics, which is just…well, jazz politics is just laughable.
This ongoing race game as it applies to the quality or authenticity of music is one of a handful of serious ailments that the “jazz community” suffers from and I’m sure I will share my opinion about a few of these other problems at a later date. In a professional music scene where talented and sometimes brilliant artists of various ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations struggle to find outlets for their talents, these kinds of arguments in the year 2011 are unacceptable. In my opinion, the bottom line about race is that you care about people being treated equally and fairly, not about using race to validate one person’s talents over another’s.
Is Kathleen Battle a great, African-American soprano? No. She’s a great soprano. She could be described as African-American in terms of her appearance or ethnic background, but her talent stands on its own. Let’s talk about the pink-shirt posse elephant in the jazz living room for a moment. Is Fred Hersch a great, gay piano player? No. He’s a great piano player who happens to be openly gay. Forget that many gay jazz musicians stay in the closet for fear of being ostracized, but someday when Wynton Marsalis tells the world that this is important I’m sure Ken Burns will make a movie and suddenly everyone will talk about it. I’m not suggesting that one’s ethnicity, sexual orientation, hair color, glasses frames, or professional sports allegiance is not of interest to people, but rather that those factors are not the criteria by which we judge a person’s talents. Of course these things are of interest to people, just look at popular culture! But it’s ironic that when the less physically attractive or not so stylish artists feel they aren’t given performance opportunities because of their appearance that visual aesthetics “shouldn’t matter.”
Really, “jazz community?” Is this the level of discussion you’re having? If so, what does that say about your understanding of this music and its cultural impact in America and around the world? Frankly, what does it say about you if these are the kinds of thoughts you’re having? How about simply supporting the artists you like and leaving the small-minded race discussion out of it? I’ve always said that jazz is the music everyone claims to love, but hardly anyone buys it. Take that $9 you’re about to spend on cigarettes or bad wine and download some music. Seriously, if you think defending what you like against what you don’t like should be done with race as a qualifier then you have problems that go far beyond music appreciation.
I am a big fan of the visual arts. I especially like painting and photography, but I like installation pieces, sculpture, tapestries, glass, and beyond. However, I tend to just say “I am an art fan.” I think the reason is because to me the term “art” does not have a permanent meaning. It seems to open its arms and meaning to the new contributions that occur over time. You can still enjoy only Monet if you want, but there’s room for Basquiat. I’m sure there are exceptions, but most Art sections in a bookstore I’ve been to just have everyone lumped in the same area and separated by last name. I like saying art because I use it as an inclusive term, rather than an exclusive term. I feel the exact same way about music.
I am not suggesting we ignore race and the factor it has played in the creation and ongoing creation of music, but I am suggesting we treat the subject with the respect everyone claims to feel it deserves. I love jazz, but I also love rock, metal, hip-hop, classical music, opera, art song, country, klezmer, and more. If the music I write and play doesn’t always swing, references operatic themes, steals from John Adams, steals from John Lennon, or uses too much European tradition then it must not be “jazz.”
I’ll simply focus my energies on music.
sb
