[Dixielandjazz] Feeling Hip about OKOM was Kenny G

[Steve Barbone]

"Hal Vickery" <hvickery at svs.com> wrote:

> From what you're saying here, I'd say that fans of Kenny G and other "smooth
> jazz" players want the air of sophistication that goes with liking jazz (at
> least anything post bebop)without any of the challenge of actually listening
> to the musical ideas that you have to do if you're going to listen to "real
> jazz."
> 
> You have to admit, OKOM isn't considered very sophisticated anymore (if it
> ever was).  That air of sophistication came when people stopped actually
> dancing to the music.  You really did have to listen to the music then, and
> a lot of people stopped buying jazz records.
> 
> Still, jazz aficionados (at least if it's post 1945 jazz) are considered to
> be musical sophisticates.  They belong to this really cool secret club.
> It's cool to be "hip," but it's also intellectually challenging.
> 
> So what better to do to make your audience feel hip and sophisticated but to
> market the dreck you're selling as this really hip new kind of "smooth
> jazz."  Then you can close your eyes and knowingly nod as musicians of
> dubious improvisational talent play scales and noodle on their horns.  And
> if they hold a note for two minutes or play their scales really fast, you
> can let out a whoop because you're so moved by it.
> 
> I've had people who listen to this stuff tell me, "I love jazz, too."
> 
> "Oh, who do you like."
> 
> "Kenny G."
> 
> And they really say it like I'm supposed to be impressed at their
> sophistication.  That's what it's all about:  to feel hip without having to
> actually think about the music.

Interesting theory.

Now I don't want to get into the bad graces of the audience, but it has been
my experience that even OKOM Festival audiences include MANY who are not
really hip to the music. They talk quantity instead of quality. Like: "I
hate All Star sets because they spend too much time between numbers" That is
being focused on the wrong issue. All star sets usually produce some
unbelievably excellent jazz. That's where the focus should be. IMO of
course. And they try and impress the musicians about how much they know,
when they should think about how much they don't know. Damn, you should have
been in Condon's where WBD, Cutshall, Condon Russell, et al would play for
20 and talk for 20 minutes each 40 minute set. Yet the banter was exciting
too and those 3 or 4 numbers they played were better than going elsewhere
and hearing 40 minutes, 8 numbers, of unexciting jazz by a lesser band.

I also think that fans and musicians (me included) both get carried away
with themselves. We all think it's hip to like OKOM, sometimes to the
exclusion of many other musical forms. And we look down on the others. If we
learn anything in this musical world, we might learn that Jazz and/or
Instrumental Pop, and/or all the other forms of music exist in a big tent.
There is room for all inside it.

We pride ourselves on our ability to "hear" melody and melodic improvisation
(Linear) in OKOM while disparaging Charlie Parker because the bop he plays
has chord improvisation (Vertical). Do we realize that view is wrong? That
many OKOM improvs are vertical and that Parker's chorus on KoKo, the seminal
Bop tune, is a stunning example of Linear (Melodic) improvisation. Do most
fans, or even most musicians for that matter, know the difference between
melodic (linear) and chordal (vertical) improv? Hint: No, "Melodic Improv"
is not "embellishing" on the melody.

We heretofore blamed Kenny G for calling his work Jazz (wrong). And then by
measuring his talent against other jazz musicians which compounds the first
wrong.  

I think we are all guilty of taking ourselves and our opinions too
seriously. This is jazz music. About which Louis A said: "Jazz is what I
play for a living." And yet many of us bitch about those of us who bring
money into the equation. Like that's not cool.

Come on folks, give others a break. Jazz would have never made it out of New
Orleans except for the fact that a poor N.O. jazz musician found he could
make $52 a week in Chicago or L.A. as opposed to about $8.50 a week in N.O.
Why else would musicians migrate? MONETARY OPPORTUNITY was the catalyst, not
the desire to play or make art for art's sake.

Same for visual shtick. Damn, it was there from the very beginning. Why now
would any of us live in denial about its value now, and/or think it uncool?

So lets not get carried away about how knowledgeable or cool we are. Truth
of the matter is we don't know a lot more . . . than we do know.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone