Sunday January 08, 2006

Entertainment value of jazz

Tim Bray revived some of my old reflections. It is easy for a jazz listener to drown in the ocean of tonal and rhythmic subtleties imposed by the sometimes overly self-indulgent musicians. But jazz is and should be fun, not necessarily requiring intense mental concentration. Especially if one recalls ragtime and dixieland were at the roots.

I remember how I got into jazz during my college days in Moscow. Coming from the rock-n-roll background, my dad listening to The Beatles beside my crib, I got tired by predictability and triviality of modern rock and found what I was looking for in jazz. Russian jazz is often too academic. For instance, some of the most prominent Russian jazzmen are also professors in a music conservatory. When I started going to live gigs, I was blown away by the visiting American musicians jamming with the locals: they always looked and sounded like giants, totally overshadowing the Russians, like uh, I dunno... Robin Williams and Matthew Broderick should they happen to be in the same scene (and speaking of acting parallels, where had method acting originated?).

A great Russian saxophone player Igor Butman spent 10 years in America learning jazz and seeing him in a Moscow jazz cafe for the first time was a revelation for me. He's fun, exuberant, spontaneous and loves tequila.

Tim wasn't impressed with Medeski and Co; well, they might be more fun in a club setting and perhaps require a certain dead state of mind. The folks are balancing at the bleeding edge, cut 'em some slack. They really shine on Scofield's A Go Go - essential listening, and massively entertaining, too.

Keith Jarret is another example of a jazz musician who successfully combines complexity with entertainment, he rarely disappoints. I can't imagine Joshua Redman being boring, no matter what Tim says. Pat Metheny is always up to something. There are a lot of great performers out there. I just wish Jaco was still alive.

(2006-01-08 08:43:37.0) Permalink Comments [2]