[Dixielandjazz] Musical Values (was The Who Lectures)

[Ken Mathieson]

Right on Larry!

I empathise with your thoughts in your mail and I too came up in the late '50s and early 60s listening to the entire jazz spectrum from early Armstrong to Blue Note hard bop at the same time (I didn't have any paticular preferences; I just loved it all) and what got to me was passion, subtlety, harmonic richness, endless melodic invention, rhythmic intensity and above all hearing people who truly meant every note they played. So it was a bit of a shock when the Beatles came on the scene in the early 60s and almost overnight killed off the jazz market.

I never really understood on musical grounds why there was such a fuss about the Beatles, but after they were gone they were replaced in UK pop culture by bands and singers with even less to offer, so I too switched off pop music by 1970 as there were so little that I could get interested in. Likewise Elvis never really impressed me on musical grounds (I could understand the mass hysteria and market manipulation aspects, but musically I could find little to interest me) and this was confirmed when I heard a BBC radio programme which centred on the original black R&B records that Elvis "covered." They had all the elements missing from the Elvis covers that I looked for, especially an earthy drive and genuine blues singing.

Fortunately my employers came to the rescue and sent me to work in Brasil in 1970. At that time rock influences hadn't really invaded Brasilian sensibilities, and I found their music ticked all the boxes for me. When I got home to Scotland the priority of feeding a young family meant I had to play everything that came in, but I quickly came to loathe the rock and cabaret gigs for their gratuitous noise and lack of musical subtlety. There was also the sameness of sound produced by a band of guitars plus the occasional synth player that Larry found hard to take too. Then there was (in Dizzy Gillespie's memorable phrase) "the Tyranny of the Backbeat" dominating and verticalising the rhythm, and as a drummer, it bored me rigid. I no longer came home from a gig feeling that I had played a part in a genuinely creative musical event: everyone played what had been played on the records we were covering and the only satisfaction came from not goofing. Similarly, when I did lots of theatre and cabaret gigs, there was no scope for self-expression, so the only satisfaction was in playing the dots without goofing.

All of this brought me to the realisation that most pop music is a "musical product" rather than music for its own sake. You'd never confuse a beefburger with prime rib, but they start from the same place and use some of the same raw materials. Maybe we should describe pop music as "convenience music": it's designed for quick consumption and equally rapid discarding in order to make way for the industry's latest new sensation. It's basically marketing-driven, whereas most jazz is content-driven, with musical quality a very high priority. I also agree with Larry about the superfluity of vocals. To me music is language and good instrumental music speaks to me better than most vocal music. I make exception for the truly great singers (people like Ella, Sarah Vaughan, Bessie Smith, Bobby McFerrin, Jimmy Witherspoon, Louis Armstrong, Elis Regina, Mercedes Sosa etc), but the point is that they too tick all the boxes for me in terns of musicality, passion, energy, technical mastery, and above all sincerity, so I view them as great musicians rather than just singers.

OK Larry, I'll get off my soapbox now.

Cheers,

Ken Mathieson
www.classicjazzorchestra.org.uk