In "Blue Nippon" you refer to that way in which non-American jazz artists are perhaps made to feel obliged to represent their indigenous traditions as "orientalzing expectations"; could you explain what you mean by this? ETA:
In an art form that is so closely identified with the United States people who aren't American have to negotiate that and almost justify their performance of this music to their peers, to Americans, to people in the homelandyou know, a variety of constituencies.
A lot of the times the jazz audience will think "If I'm going to hear somebody just play straight up, mainstream jazz I'm going to go listen to [saxophonist] Stan Getz
, I'm not going to listen to [saxophonist] Sleepy Matsumoto
or somebody like that"just because that person is Japanese. So, in order to win over an audience that would be curious about jazz with a Japanese-sounding aspect the Japanese artist will make that concession.
There is a point where if a Japanese band is going to go to the United States and play, they damn well better sound Japanese because that's what the audiences want. If they just go and play the Woody Herman
or Count Basie
stuff they play at home people are going to say, "What's the point? Why do you come all the way over here to play stuff that Woody Herman or Count Basie play better than you do?" Of course, that in itself is debatable but there would be that presumption.
The big example I'm thinking of is the Hara Nobuo Sharps and Flats big band which came to play at Newport in 1966 or '67, which commissioned a whole set of charts of Japanese folk songs for big band. Hara Nobuo was very up-front about this; he said we can't go over there and play the stuff we normally play because Americans can hear that all the time played by the original bands so we need to do something that's distinctive and different. So, they fall back on that national strategy, if you will. It has to sound exotic to get attention. AAJ:
It seems that non-Americans are often considered as being inauthentic if they play straight-ahead, bebop or whatever, yet it's okay for [saxophonists] Stan Getz
, Charles Lloyd
and Charlie Mariano
or [pianist] Randy Weston
for example, to explore other musics of the world: is there a double standard at work here? ETA:
Oh heck yeah. Absolutely there is. There's no question about it. There always has been a double standard. That's the privilege of being a superpower or an imperial power or whatever; you have perfect artistic license to pillage from other cultures but there's more skepticism when it's done the other way. I think there has been a double standard but it's not as pronounced as it used to be. AAJ:
In traditional histories of jazzKen Burns is a classic examplethe story of jazz is usually portrayed as a natural, linear history, brought about by brilliant individuals; it's not really that simple, is it? ETA:
No, not at all. I don't think it's as big a shift from original jazz, New Orleans, Chicago-style jazz to the swing era; it's not such a big rupture. Bebop is a big rupture, free-jazz, jazz-rock fusion and what some would call world-fusion jazz including non-western instrumentsthose are bigger ruptures and I am very sympathetic to the view that those might productively be regarded as completely different kinds of music.
There are people involved in those movements who would be on either side of the spectrum. People like Louis Armstrong rejecting bebop, at least at first, beboppers rejecting [saxophonist] Ornette Coleman
and Cecil Taylor, and then there were others who could see some continuity between them. Certainly the people who were making those revolutions had an ambivalent relationship with the pastthey respected it and it influenced them but they wanted to do something different.
I wrestle with it all the time because I really do like all kinds of jazz. When I had a radio show my unofficial logo was "playing it all from [pianist] Jelly Roll Morton
to [pianist] Sun Ra
. I do believe there's something that holds them all together but very tenuously and I would be hard-pressed to have to define what those things are. I'm much more comfortable admitting that jazz is something that people argue about, rather than saying it is this one thing. I think that that's just more real.
You're probably familiar with the idea that the term jazz came to have some really practical value as marking art from entertainment and white from black. People in the musician's unions were either musicians or they were jazz musicians, the implication being that jazz musicians tended to be black, that they tended to play in clubs rather than concert halls; that determined how they were paid and how they fit in society. People like [drummer] Max Roach
, who rejected the idea of jazz, it wasn't because he was offended by the word, he was offended by the implication that it was less value than what classical musicians were doing, and I think that's where his hatred of the word came from because it had real, concrete consequences for the economic livelihoods and working conditions of the musicians who played it.
So, I'm very sympathetic to the AACM [Association for the Advancement of Creative Musicians] in Chicagoit's not that they reject the jazz tradition, what they reject is the idea that they must either be jazz musicians or they must be something else, that they must either be improvisers or composers. In the end a lot of them say "It's music, damn it. It's just music." Why does it have to be one or the other? Why does it have to be composed or improvised? Why does it have to be classical or jazz? Why does it have to be art or entertainment?
I'm aware that the word jazz has a nefarious history. Somebody might ask me, "Do you think [saxophonist] Kenny G
is jazz?" I don't think that's the right question. The right question should be "Is Kenny G any good?" It's not good because it's jazz or bad because it's not jazz. Critics have tended to use the term "jazz" to indicate something that's really good and pop or "non-jazz" as a term of abuse, as though it's self evidently good if it's jazz. This is the way Wynton Marsalis uses it, frankly.