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
Yes, an artist is free to decide whether to take the audience into account or not; the audience is accordingly free to not engage the artist (or, said more bluntly, the artist is free to starve).
ReplyDeleteIt's a long rant I have about this, but in short:
As a classical musician, my genre has a huge HUGE relevancy identity crisis. My hunch is that this is due (in part) to academic tenure; in the mid-20th century, "great" composers got Jobs For Life and were able to compose music that no one really liked and still have food on the table.
Would this have happened without academia? Possibly. But its an interesting line of thought. My take on it? Ignore your audience and live in a bubble at the risk of loosing them and social relevancy.
...but I am totally jealous that you got to see Keith Jarrett live.
Interesting. Tenure does get a pretty bad reputation sometimes, but in the end I don't hate the system. If it is used correctly it can help to balance power in academic settings which could lead to innovative research. In a weird way we could think of Keith Jarrett as having jazz tenure. Two more interesting points about the Keith Jarrett show is that he did end up bringing more people than John Legend, who's artistic approach is the opposite. Also, a few nights later Herbie Hancock and Chick Corea played a duo concert. The concert atmosphere was more relaxed, and they both did a great job in engaging the crowd. However, during the performance the noise that the audience was making stuck out much more to me, and in a way started to take away from what was happening on stage. So maybe Keith is on the right track? Moderation is the key to life though, at least I think.
DeleteHi Leon,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all it is great to see you are out and about performing and teaching! Your post brings up many layers of things and some thoughts and experiences. First of all, Keith is notoriously temperamental as we all know, and he had some issues before I think at Umbria, so perhaps his decision to play in the dark was to “separate the wheat from the chaff” so to speak and cancel all photos and videos etc. However this does negate of course the real reason why anyone would show up to a concert in the first place: to see the interaction, the emotion, the gesturing, and to hear a “live” performance first hand. Granted seeing Keith live with all his gyrations can be very distracting of course, and maybe we’re better off listening to his genius under headphones! Horowitz was quoted once saying (and I paraphrase here) “don’t come to see me if you expect to see a show”, and I guess he was also possibly alluding to the fact that you should concentrate solely on the music and not the physical attributes of the performer. Lang Lang comes to mind here. He is a true virtuoso in every sense, but all of the eye rolling and over the top hand gestures? No thanks; I’ll take Horowitz or Martha Argerich every time!
That said, one cannot lose respect for the 2 way street that must happen in the arts. Zawinul once asked me when we were hanging backstage one night at the Bluenote in NY. “Are there any people out there?” I told him “yeah the place is packed”. He replied, “that’s good because the people are #1!” That always stuck with me, and showed a continuing and needed respect that an artist of his stature has for his peeps. There is a big lesson there.
I remember one time out on tour with the Bob Mintzer quartet in Italy, we were doing a summer concert in a small piazza. We were in the van going to the concert and the promoter gets a call that when they turned on the power for the stage (sound and lights) they blew out all the electricity for the whole center of town. We did not know what to expect when we got there. We were led to stage by flashlight, and after my eyes adjusted a bit I was able to see around 600 people sitting patiently in total darkness! No boos or hissing, just hanging out and waiting. Eventually they got some small monitors and emergency lighting on and the concert went on to a great audience!
Playing with Sax Summit at the Hollywood Bowl reminded me a bit about the scene you describe at the Herbie-Chick concert, only much worse in LA. So it is very complex situation. I find that the Italian audiences are great listeners. They really connect with the music, perhaps because of their strong cultural heritage in the arts.
In the final analysis it is up to us to do our job and bring out the highest-level performance we can play in honest expression and emotion. That’s about all anyone can ask from us!
Best regards,
Phil Markowitz