Hello friends, family and people that I don't know. I am writing to you today from the wonderful Umbria Summer Jazz festival in Perugia Italy. A few nights I was fortunate enough to catch most of the Keith Jarrett trio concert and it got me thinking about a few things. The show was a pretty far walk from my hotel, and the entire way down there I was surprised at the amount of people that were walking away from the performance. I was a little late because the hour hand on my american watch doesn't go past 12, so things get confusing. (kidding?)
Anyway, it turns out that people were walking away from the concert because The Keith Jarrett Trio was indeed playing to a stadium full of fans, some that paid a great deal of money for the experience, in the dark. The stage was completely black except for one lonely stand light for the bassist. I've heard a few different reasons about they decided to play in the dark, but in the end I don't think they matter. I arrived during what I thought was the last song, and afterwards the trio took a bow and walked off stage. All in the dark, never acknowledging their fans.
Following a decent round of applause things got quiet, and some of the audience started to leave. I had never been to a Keith Jarrett concert before, and was unaware that he is known for playing many encores. So even though the stage was still dark, and nobody was clapping my friends and I decided to stick around just incase more music happened. After about 20 minutes there was an announcement and people started to cheer. So either the concert was going to start again, or somebody hit Keith in the face with a pie. My Italian isn't perfect, and the crowd would've cheered for either scenario, I think.
The concert did start back, about 20 minutes after it stopped, but this time they played with the lights on. I was expecting just one or two more songs, but they played almost another concerts worth of music to a still packed house. Hmm, so what is really going on here? Was the dark intro just a test to weed out the true fans? Does Keith hate us? Do I hate Keith? Was the darkness meant to enhance the experience of seeing the trio?
Since the concert I've been pondering the role of an artist, especially when it comes to relating with his or her fans. What I take from the Jarrett concert is an artist who creates art without his fans in mind, and in my opinion there have been many famous artists over the years that have done the same thing. Miles Davis during his I'm going to play with my back to everyone period is probably the most famous example. Are these artists wrong? Should all artists have to adhere to the same set of standards?
In my opinion Keith Jarrett is in a place where his art is so highly respected that catching his trio live literally becomes a challenge. Because they can play almost anywhere in the world, they don't end up in your backyard too often. What I see in Keith is a man who is highly talented and has also spent years developing his artistic voice. I do understand that without support from his fans for all of these years he would have zero career, but is it possible for an artist to reach the point of where it is their fans privilege to enjoy their talents?
Personally I believe that an artist is free to choose whether or not they want to make art for the people, or to make art for the sake of making great art. In Keith we arguably have a man who's influence will last forever. People like that do not come around that often. While I do think that is it a little ridiculous for fans to get accosted for something as simple as taking a picture, it does give us a glimpse into the focus and attention to detail it takes to become a great artist. Also, Keith isn't shy about broadcasting his demands, so if people don't like them, can't they just stay home?
In my opinion Keith Jarrett is in a place where his art is so highly respected that catching his trio live literally becomes a challenge. Because they can play almost anywhere in the world, they don't end up in your backyard too often. What I see in Keith is a man who is highly talented and has also spent years developing his artistic voice. I do understand that without support from his fans for all of these years he would have zero career, but is it possible for an artist to reach the point of where it is their fans privilege to enjoy their talents?
Personally I believe that an artist is free to choose whether or not they want to make art for the people, or to make art for the sake of making great art. In Keith we arguably have a man who's influence will last forever. People like that do not come around that often. While I do think that is it a little ridiculous for fans to get accosted for something as simple as taking a picture, it does give us a glimpse into the focus and attention to detail it takes to become a great artist. Also, Keith isn't shy about broadcasting his demands, so if people don't like them, can't they just stay home?
What do yinz think?
ps-Keith is probably a crazy man, and maybe he shows his respect to his fans in different ways? At the end of the day he did play almost an hours worth of encores.
Over and out.
Leon
ps-Keith is probably a crazy man, and maybe he shows his respect to his fans in different ways? At the end of the day he did play almost an hours worth of encores.
Over and out.
Leon
