The Koln Concert remembered, and despised.
October 27, 2008 8:25 AM   Subscribe

It is the most successful solo jazz album of all time, but Keith Jarrett wants to see each of the 3.5 million copies of "The Köln Concert" stomped into the ground.
posted by mattholomew (118 comments total) 14 users marked this as a favorite
 
Sounds like a wacko.

That said, more money equals better than.
posted by DU at 8:34 AM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


Here is the first 10 minutes.
posted by RussHy at 8:43 AM on October 27, 2008


I only had to listen to a very brief excerpt to agree with him 100%.
posted by yhbc at 8:44 AM on October 27, 2008


He's certainly idiosyncratic, to say the least. And from the sounds of it, his concerts are an ordeal that I'd rather not go through. But I do love The Koln Concert despite his weird vocalizing. I think it's one of those rare instances where artistic value and sales have some correlation. But I'm sure the detractors will pile on here, should be fun to watch the sparks fly.
posted by mattholomew at 8:45 AM on October 27, 2008


...Mr. Jarrett complained that the album had become nothing more than a soundtrack.

Piano improvisation just a soundtrack?!

This is my shocked face. Oh and for some reason I just remembered I have a dentist appointment.
posted by DU at 8:48 AM on October 27, 2008


Hm. I would never have expected that a man who makes baby noises while playing piano and treats his audiences like a despised groups of intruders might say something crazy.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:51 AM on October 27, 2008 [6 favorites]


Jarrett is an infamous prima donna, an impression confirmed by many things I've heard him say at concerts. (To an audience giving him a standing ovation and calling for an encore: "After a good meal, don't demand chocolate cake.") But his trio, with the sublime Jack DeJohnette and Gary Peacock, is the most adventurous and thoughtful jazz piano trio gigging out there. For a very deep taste of what they do, with no score or standard arrangements, check out Changeless, one of the trio's most underrated and profound recordings.

A rude neighbor of mine who claimed she was "allergic to carpeting" used to play The Koln Concert ten times a day every day, so I'm a little over it. But Jarrett and his trio-mates are true masters. Another less-celebrated recording of Jarrett's that deserves more attention is Kenny Wheeler's Gnu High, which was Jarrett's last recording as a sideman, and features DeJohnette and the genius bassist Dave Holland. Download the energetic track called "Smatter" for a taste of his dynamic accompaniment in a kind of setting you don't usually hear him in.
posted by digaman at 8:54 AM on October 27, 2008 [3 favorites]


digaman, thanks for the reccos. I'm always on the lookout for good jazz and I have not gone far into Jarrett's catalogue at all.
posted by mattholomew at 8:58 AM on October 27, 2008


"Stop enjoying music the way you want to! Music is what I say it is and should be enjoyed the way I say it should be enjoyed! How dare you listen to my artwork while you eat dinner! How dare you play an arrangement of it on guitar!"

"Didn't you hear me? Stop having fun!"
posted by straight at 8:58 AM on October 27, 2008


Bah. I like the Köln Concert well enough, but my favorite of Jarrett's improvised piano albums is the two-CD (three-LP when I first heard it) Bremen-Lausanne set. I don't know if it's technically or critically better, but I found it at a moment at which it resonated with me, and it has ever since.

It's one thing to improvise brilliantly, and another thing entirely to improvise brilliantly again, in exactly the same way but uniquely again. The first performance was made with no real expectations from the audience, and every performance since is publicly compared to it.

It's not hard to understand why he hates "Köln", and it has not nearly as much to do with his eccentricities as it does with every artist's need to advance and mature.
posted by ardgedee at 8:59 AM on October 27, 2008


For reference, some other 'whackos'.
posted by mattholomew at 9:02 AM on October 27, 2008 [3 favorites]


A pity.

I've never heard the whole thing, but it's used to stunning effect in the film Bad Timing. Nicolas Roeg had some interesting things to say about working with Jarrett on the "Trade Secrets" interview that's on the Criterion Bad Timing disc.
posted by pxe2000 at 9:06 AM on October 27, 2008


*coughs*
*unwraps cough drop*
*receives icily-brutal stare from Keith Jarrett, who has stopped his performance in its tracks*
*remembers that the performance being watched is on youtube, breathes sigh of relief, sets herbal tea back on coaster made from Restoration Ruin*
posted by ericbop at 9:19 AM on October 27, 2008 [3 favorites]


This is one thing on which Keith Jarrett and I can agree.
posted by greenie2600 at 9:23 AM on October 27, 2008


I've listened to quite a bit of Jarrett's live stuff, both solo and groups (as digaman points out above, the trios with DeJohnette/Peacock are amazing.)

There's nothing on The Köln Concert that is so much better than any of his other live performances, but what makes it so sublime is that it's pretty much engaging 100% of the time. Whereas other recordings of performances have their peaks and valleys, he's just *on* from start to finish in this one.

Related: Google Books link to the title story from David Foster Wallace's Girl With Curious Hair, which takes place at a Jarrett concert.
posted by SpiffyRob at 9:24 AM on October 27, 2008


So he derides it in a Spiegel interview in 1992, and the WSJ is reporting this now?
posted by ethnomethodologist at 9:25 AM on October 27, 2008


I'm on Keith's side. I once read the book The Art of Fiction, by John Gardner, and in it he proposes this definition of sentimentality:

"Sentimentality, in all its forms, is the attempt to get some effect without providing due cause."

This is the essence of Keith Jarrett's music to me. The drama of his presentation doesn't make me feel emotive, but manipulated.

Piano improvisation just a soundtrack?! This is my shocked face. Oh and for some reason I just remembered I have a dentist appointment.

It's not all that way, I promise.
posted by invitapriore at 9:31 AM on October 27, 2008 [4 favorites]


News flash for ya, KJ: Once you've played it, you can't unplay it.

Get over yourself.
posted by Aquaman at 9:37 AM on October 27, 2008


Why do people expect that individuals with genius-level artistic gifts also have to have the patience of a saint and the social graces of Emily Post?

Serious music deserves a serious audience. I would argue that a live improvisational performance is riskier and demands more from the performer, and can be negatively affected by the audience. It's not the same as an artist just banging out his/her greatest hits for the 1400th time.

It's not for everyone. You don't go to see Keith Jarrett because the lineup for "Mama Mia" was too long.

As you may gather, I have a big hate for the typical uncommitted audience. The cougher, the loud wrapper-krinkler, the "commentator", and the supreme asshole who not only won't shut off their cell phone, but will attempt to hold a conversation during the performance. I hope there's a special hell for them, where they have nothing to do for eternity but listen to each other fidget.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:38 AM on October 27, 2008 [7 favorites]


I like the album but understand his sentiment. In fact, "We also have to learn to forget music," he added. "Otherwise we become addicted to the past." may be one of the best things I've ever heard an artist say. I wish fans of classic rock would agree.
posted by Manhasset at 9:43 AM on October 27, 2008 [2 favorites]


So he derides it in a Spiegel interview in 1992, and the WSJ is reporting this now?

Dude, the article's like two weeks old.
posted by Manhasset at 9:48 AM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


He must *really* hate Kind of Blue.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:53 AM on October 27, 2008


For pianists keen on playing Jarrett's compositions as well as his interpretations of jazz standards, transcripts of his performances are available at no cost here and here. (The first of these two sites is especially good.)
posted by New Frontier at 9:59 AM on October 27, 2008 [3 favorites]


I wish he could be more like Kenny G.
posted by Meatbomb at 9:59 AM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


G Love and Special Sauce.
posted by Artw at 10:08 AM on October 27, 2008


I always thought Kind of Blue was the most successful.
posted by swift at 10:17 AM on October 27, 2008


Keith Jarrett has always been a real douchebag.
posted by mike3k at 10:22 AM on October 27, 2008


I always thought Kind of Blue was the most successful.

Kind of Blue is not a solo work.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:27 AM on October 27, 2008


Why do people expect that individuals with genius-level artistic gifts also have to have the patience of a saint and the social graces of Emily Post?


regular old patience and social graces would suffice, no one is too good for them
posted by caddis at 10:28 AM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


I went to see Keith Jarrett in Vancouver a few years after Koln Concert was released-- around early 1979 perhaps?-- when he was doing a solo tour. During the first 15 minutes he vocalized, stood and performed hip thrusts at the keyboard, etc., and the music was weirdly unengaging. I thought it was, perhaps, just me, until a man suddenly screamed at him from the back of the hall, something along the lines of "Fuck Debussy, fuck [somebody] fuck this romantic era CRAP!" and the whole place fell into terrified silence. I'll never forget the look on Jarrett's face as he sat frozen at the keyboard in mid-emote.

Then Jarrett announced a break and walked offstage, whereupon I assume his management spent the next little while talking him into returning to play the second half. The second half was slightly better, actually.
posted by jokeefe at 10:28 AM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


If you like jazz, you'll love jazzhammer!
posted by Artw at 10:28 AM on October 27, 2008 [4 favorites]


Serious music deserves a serious audience. I would argue that a live improvisational performance is riskier and demands more from the performer, and can be negatively affected by the audience.

And this is why people hate jazz.

Why make an already difficult style of music even more inaccessible by erecting protocols and barriers to entry? It's not a worship service, it's a concert. Sure, people should be respectful of others and respectful of the performers, but that's as far as that goes. Jazz is no more inherently "serious" than any other form of musical expression and those who would portray it as such risk further marginalizing it.

That said, I cheerfully endorse shooting hippies in the head when they're twirling in the aisles at a jazz show.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:34 AM on October 27, 2008 [3 favorites]


Great record ... if you like music.

I have no particular opinion of the man being lucky enough not to know him personally. I have met a few "famous" artist-types in my time and one or two of them (sorry, no name-dropping) have proven to be difficult people, to say the least. Does this diminish their work? I don't know but as a friend once commented after spending a miserable evening with one of them, "Thank God they're on our side. Can you imagine what horrible shit they could perpetrate with the encouragement (and financing) of the forces of darkness?"
posted by philip-random at 10:38 AM on October 27, 2008


Kind of Blue is not a solo work.

How many solo jazz albums are there, really?
posted by smackfu at 10:42 AM on October 27, 2008


Keith Jarrett has always been a real douchebag.

But what does his music do for people?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:43 AM on October 27, 2008


It is the most successful solo jazz album of all time

Kenny G - Breathless - 12 Million
Nora Jones - Come Away With Me - 10 Million
Natalie Cole - Unforgettable With Love Natalie Cole - 7 Million
Kenny G - Duotones - 5 Million
Johnny Mathis - Merry Christmas - 5 Million

Maybe they meant something other than what they wrote.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:45 AM on October 27, 2008


How many solo jazz albums are there, really?

A better question, perhaps, is whether these "best-selling" marques mean anything. Most of it comes out of a record company's promo department. What does the music do for you?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:47 AM on October 27, 2008


Solo = unaccompanied.
posted by philip-random at 10:47 AM on October 27, 2008


Keith Jarrett has always been a real douchebag.

But what does his music do for people?


It makes them think he's a douchebag?
posted by tommasz at 10:48 AM on October 27, 2008


Maybe they meant something other than what they wrote.

You just listed two Kenny G albums. We were talking about jazz.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:49 AM on October 27, 2008 [4 favorites]


Wow. Reading through the comments here I can see that some of you are NOT musicians and have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to this music.

The first few comments are obviously from people who've never even heard of Jarrett, thus they couldn't possibly have any idea of how deeply musical the man is, and how seriously he takes his art. They may be forgetting that some of the most incredible musicians of all time were "kinda weird." Beethoven, Wagner, Miles Davis, Schumann, Berlioz; I mean the list could go on and on and on. Even the Beatles were big drug heads and said some wild stuff, but they played rock music so it doesn't matter because rock music appeals to the masses and long solo piano jazz improvisation does not.

I urge anyone who thinks Keith Jarrett's improvisation or trio work is crap; learn SOMETHING about music theory. Study improvisation. Actually study it on an instrument. Realize how difficult it is to be able to play music off the top of your head in any key; you need not only technical facility and years upon years of practice, but instinct, passion and curiosity. When Jarrett moves and yells as he plays, it's because he has totally given himself over TO the music. He is not "putting it on" or "faking it". VERY VERY few people will ever achieve the level is musicianship that Jarrett experiences; it seems foreign to most of us and so, laughable. Kind of how some people laugh because they are intimidated. So it is with Jarrett's playing.

I agree about Koln Concert; at this point it sounds kitschy. And Jarrett is right. People need to get over it. He has so many subsequent recordings and has really developed and evolved over the years.
posted by ChickenringNYC at 10:50 AM on October 27, 2008 [6 favorites]


Bitteroldpunk is right that jazz would be better off if it ditched the exacting protocols for listening. I wonder, though, if they're part of the draw for some people. Every musical style creates its own scene, and jazz has created a very rigid and uptight scene. Weird, when you think of the history.
posted by echo target at 10:51 AM on October 27, 2008


Maybe they meant something other than what they wrote.

I don't know much about those artists, but I don't believe those are solo albums: The artists on those albums you list are accompanied by other artists. On The Köln Concert, Jarrett is playing alone.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:51 AM on October 27, 2008


Jarrett's recordings of classical music are very good as well -- check out his recording of Shostakovich's 24 Preludes and Fugues. Also Handel's Suites for Keyboard and Lou Harrison's Piano Concerto. Jarrett really picks his material well, and seems only to record when he can bring something new to the piece.

In defense of Jarrett, his anti-social behavior never seemed gratuitous to me. He tells his audience what he needs to perform at his highest. The majority of people who go to his concerts want him to perform at his highest, so they are willing to stifle a cough. It's true that he makes some concertgoers feel unwelcome, but really he's only limiting his audience to those who want the kind of experience that at his best he can provide.

DU: Jarrett isn't a prima donna because he's earned so much money. If anything it's the opposite. He could have earned a fortune by composing simple pieces rather than improvising very complex pieces. Look at George Winston. He must have earned double or more of what Jarrett has made, based on less interesting material. I'm glad to have George Winstons in the world, but for me I'm more happy listening to a richer exploration that Jarrett provides. Here's an example of what he does with the most familiar, and thus most predictable of material
posted by ferdydurke at 10:52 AM on October 27, 2008


Why do people expect that individuals with genius-level artistic gifts also have to have the patience of a saint and the social graces of Emily Post?

Because people are idiots. If they'd rather listen to Emily Post play the piano, let them.

For anyone who can wrap their heads around the idea that artists are not always ideal dinner companions, and can even be annoying stage presences, some recommendations (note: I generally prefer his trio work):

Bye Bye Blackbird
At the Deer Head Inn
The Melody at Night, With You
(solo)
Whisper Not
Always Let Me Go

posted by languagehat at 10:54 AM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


It makes them think he's a douchebag?

Pithy and, in the end, meaningless. Do you really put a lot of emotional energy into what you think about an artist, personally?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:58 AM on October 27, 2008


I urge anyone who thinks Keith Jarrett's improvisation or trio work is crap; learn SOMETHING about music theory.

It is perfectly possible to respect the craft and dislike the product. I'm quite familiar with improvisation and I find his work unengaging. Additionally, there is a whole history of improvised jazz that does not involve throwing tantrums.

Domn't make the mistake of assuming critics are uneducated just because they don't share your opinion.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:59 AM on October 27, 2008 [2 favorites]


Jazz is no more inherently "serious" than any other form of musical expression and those who would portray it as such risk further marginalizing it.

Couldn't agree more. I'd even argue that it's less inherently serious than many types of music, and treating jazz performances like "classical" concerts of the last 50 years is little more than an exercise in snobbery. The roots of jazz are boisterous. From the start, jazz involved lots of crowd enthusiasm, if not outright participation. I'm not saying that adjustments shouldn't be made for particular sub-genres, or that there's EVER an excuse for your cell phone going off at any performance/screening of ANYTHING, but seriously, coughing? If I ever see someone giving me the evil eye for coughing, again, pretty much at anything, I will be sure to follow it up by bellowing "HEY I JUST COUGHED AND THIS GUY DIDN'T LIKE IT LET'S OPEN THE FLOOR TO DISCUSSION!"
posted by SpiffyRob at 11:02 AM on October 27, 2008 [2 favorites]


How many solo jazz albums are there, really?

In the big scheme of things not many. Most of them seen to be
on guitar or piano. But i've found some personal gems in this format
on of my all time favorite recordings is ralph towner's solo concert:

http://www.amazon.com/Solo-Concert-Ralph-Towner/dp/B0000261KX
posted by MikeHoegeman at 11:02 AM on October 27, 2008


By the way, if you have to be a musician with a lot of experience in music theory and improvisation to enjoy Jarrett, then perhaps Jarrett should only play in front of an audience of musicians.

I've hung around with jazz musicians, though. They tend to make a lot of noise when they listen to music. You know. Little shouts of encourangement. Applause. Whistles. Thigh slapping. Jarrett night not like that.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:03 AM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


Why do people expect that individuals with genius-level artistic gifts also have to have the patience of a saint and the social graces of Emily Post?

Because people are idiots.
posted by languagehat


There you go.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:06 AM on October 27, 2008


We were talking about jazz.

No we're not, we're talking about the Koln Concert.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:08 AM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


I always thought Kind of Blue was the most successful.

Kind of Blue has only sold 3 million copies.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:10 AM on October 27, 2008


Sufficiently advanced music is indistinguishable from emperors-new-clothes style snooty elitism
posted by Artw at 11:16 AM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


Wow. Reading through the comments here I can see that some of you are NOT musicians and have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to this music.

Wow, that's a great way to start your comment if you don't want people to read it.
posted by smackfu at 11:18 AM on October 27, 2008 [4 favorites]


I have met a few "famous" artist-types in my time and one or two of them (sorry, no name-dropping) have proven to be difficult people, to say the least.

I once heard an interview with a festival director who had worked with getting various then-notable opera performers onto her stage over the years; the interviewer asked the mandatory question about divas and how hard they were to deal with, and the director's answer was something like, "The top people - the real top people - are almost always easy to deal with because they have complete confidence in how good they are. It's mostly the people a bit lower down that are hard work."

A rule of thumb rather than always true, I'm sure, but it's always coloured my view of pronouncements that one must simply accept artists acting poorly.
posted by rodgerd at 11:25 AM on October 27, 2008 [2 favorites]


Jazz is dead.

Next patient, please.

(and get the body off my lawn!)

{I just had to say it ... }
posted by aldus_manutius at 11:28 AM on October 27, 2008


I've had my share of bad celebrity experiences. The worst ones were always the people who had no significant talent, but had coasted by on weak or stolen material and a few lucky breaks. But I also spent a lot of time with Shelley Winters, who was truly talented and a real freaking nightmare.

Success, and fame, seems to have an amplifying effect on people's personality. The crazy get crazier. The helpless become totally dependent on an army of paid assistants. The addictive become raging junkies. Although I haven't experienced much of it myself, I've been around famous people my entire adult life. Even when you're dealing with low-levl fame, it can be pretty toxic.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:36 AM on October 27, 2008


> Bitteroldpunk is right that jazz would be better off if it ditched the exacting protocols for listening. I wonder, though, if they're part of the draw for some people. Every musical style creates its own scene, and jazz has created a very rigid and uptight scene. Weird, when you think of the history.

Jeez guys (cretins notwithstanding), jazz is much too broad to be described and demeaned so simply. Dixieland, anyone? Blues? Fusion? Latin? Afro-cuban? There's plenty of jazz music where the audience is encouraged to make some noise and basically party with the band. But if you're going to pay money to see an artist and you know the music is deep, introspective, improvisational...you really appreciate it more when the audience shuts the fuck up.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:38 AM on October 27, 2008


I meant to emphasize that SOME are not musicians... not that some are NOT musicians. That's my mistake and I apologize. I only wanted to single out the few people who were writing this stuff off because they read that Keith "throws tantrums" as Astro Zombie points out. And all of this bullshit about critics understanding improvisation as much as an improvising musician? Get real. People like Alex Ross are NOT musicians, just people who grew up listening to a lot of records. That is NOT ELITISM, people. I don't pretend to fully understand the stock market just because I buy and trade a few stocks and read business news. Same thing.
posted by ChickenringNYC at 11:46 AM on October 27, 2008


I can appreciate Jarrett's craft - although I haven't picked up the trombone or guitar since my 20s I still shudder to think what amount of insane practice it would have taken to improvise at any level, let alone his. And the level that players of his level can achieve is frightening. A couple months ago I heard for the first time the Charles Mingus w/Eric Dolphy at Cornell CDs. To play improvise solo is tough but to hear world-class players taking flights off each other is equally impressive.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with a simple tune played well. One of the finest evenings of music my wife and I ever experienced was sitting in a cavernous Media Play store with about 20 other people, listening to George Winston play Hawaiian slack key guitar. It was a howling blizzard outside and there may have been less than 30 people in the entire store. And Winston still gave us a good 30 to 40 minutes of timeless music played with passion, enjoying the intimacy as much as we did.

And to prove that I am entirely schizo, I opened up the day cranking the hell out of the new AC/DC. Because variety truly is the spice of life.
posted by Ber at 11:51 AM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


I wanted to snark some more, but ferdydurke reminded me I owe Jarrett an immeasurable debt for introducing me to Shostakovich's 24 Preludes and Fugues. Thank you, sir.
posted by straight at 11:59 AM on October 27, 2008


Were he a painter he would get upset at your pupils dilating as you enter the gallery.
posted by jon_kill at 12:06 PM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


How many solo jazz albums are there, really?

They are a minoroty, but Evan Parker, Mats Gustafsson, Derek Bailey and Anthony Braxton (to name but a few) have all released excellent solo albums.
posted by soundofsuburbia at 12:09 PM on October 27, 2008


Chickenring, calm down! As one of the gross Philistines posting here who has never cracked a single music-theory textbook, I have full appreciation of what Jarrett does, as my links should have told you. I'd be happy to compare my jazz library with yours any day. But as someone who has been seeing Jarrett perform since the late '70s -- and as someone who is utterly grateful for the brilliance of total Aspergerian weirdos like Glenn Gould (and infamous assholes like Stan Getz, who still made Heaven come out of his horn) -- I can tell you that even in that exalted company, Jarrett can be (or could be in the past, I haven't seen him in a couple of years) extremely rude and temperamental with his audiences. He's the definition of a prima donna. Considering that this entire FPP hinges on some dorky thing that Jarrett said once, spun up into a whirlwind by a headline-writer at a newspaper, his temperament is relevant. Not that it should prevent anyone from enjoying his nonpareil improvisational abilities, which are have been more exhaustively documented by ECM than any other jazz musician I can think of.
posted by digaman at 12:12 PM on October 27, 2008


But i've found some personal gems in this format on of my all time favorite recordings is ralph towner's solo concert

I love that album with all my heart. Also the first Soltice record, too.

posted by jokeefe at 12:13 PM on October 27, 2008


Ahem. "Solstice". This one.
posted by jokeefe at 12:15 PM on October 27, 2008


The thing that annoys me is my amazement that something that was invented as a soundtrack for gettin bizzay, knockin boots, doin the humpty hump or the horizontal boogie, etc etc has turned into a lecture in which one is allowed only several breaths per hour lest the musician be disturbed by the thump of an audience member's pulse. This is why I listen to my jazz albums at home..where i can jump around like dr huxtable and make weird faces and pretend to be drumming. Try it with Monk. You'll be happier than having to pretend to be intellectually captivated for two hours.
posted by spicynuts at 12:22 PM on October 27, 2008


I love it when anyone dances in the aisles at my jazz quintet's shows, BitterOldPunk, hippie or not. I take it as a compliment.
posted by lazaruslong at 12:28 PM on October 27, 2008


You could kick over a piano and a hippie would dance down the aisle at the noise it made.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:31 PM on October 27, 2008


It is the most successful solo jazz album of all time, but Keith Jarrett wants to see each of the 3.5 million copies of "The Köln Concert" stomped into the ground.

Source please, WSJ. The article uses quotes like:

"We also have to learn to forget music," he added. "Otherwise we become addicted to the past."

... and that's about it.

So when did he say he'd like to see every single recording DESTROYED?

I call BULLSHIT. And a pretty weak post. How about some supporting material?

Here are two interviews with Jarrett from 2007. Good stuff.

I like the Koln concert, fwiw. And with 3.5 million copies out there, it's damn easy to find the LP for $.25-.50.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:35 PM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


Dear Keith Jarrett: if you will send me a cheque for 20.99, I will stomp my copy of "The Köln Concert" into the ground. Please Mefimail me for my address. Sincerely, Louigi.
posted by louigi at 12:45 PM on October 27, 2008


You could kick over a piano and a hippie would dance down the aisle at the noise it made.

As would have John Cage, bless his heart. That's one of the things the hippies got right.
posted by digaman at 12:49 PM on October 27, 2008 [3 favorites]


Pithy and, in the end, meaningless. Do you really put a lot of emotional energy into what you think about an artist, personally?

Good point. There are several artists I could name who come across as assholes, personally or politically, but whose records are fucking incredible.
posted by jonmc at 12:56 PM on October 27, 2008


I remember listening to my brother's copy of The Koln Concert when it came out. I was like 12 years old at the time. I've bought quite a few Jarrett albums and CDs over the years, and saw him solo once, and in ensembles other times. The problem with being a solo improvisation musician is that you have to be on, and there's nothing backing you up. When I saw him solo, it was a huge disappointment. He wasn't on, and there was no other people in the band to pick up the slack or fire him up. So, how many times do I have to go to a Keith Jarrett Concert before I get a good one? I don't want to know, I'll just hope it gets recorded and released. Now, I'd go and see him in a hot second in any of the groups I've heard him play with. I'd also go see him play classical music too since I've enjoyed his classical CDs too. But solo? Never again. Add being an arrogant prick on stage to not playing well that night, and I wish I had never gone in the first place.

He has done a lot of great music over the years, and one that I liked a lot but haven't listened to in years is "Survivor's Suite" with Dewey Redman, Charlie Haden, and Paul Motian. Great stuff.
posted by Eekacat at 1:27 PM on October 27, 2008


I never got why everyone's so crazy about the Koln Concert.

The first movement is just a lot of jerking off around a minor and G major and it's all downhill from there. I also find Jarrett's humming along quite annoying.
posted by sour cream at 1:54 PM on October 27, 2008


I'd even argue that it's less inherently serious than many types of music, and treating jazz performances like "classical" concerts of the last 50 years is little more than an exercise in snobbery. The roots of jazz are boisterous.

Don't be ridiculous. For one thing, the roots of classical are boisterous, as are the roots of pretty much every human activity. So what? Trees are not roots. For another thing, there's no such thing as "jazz"; Jelly Roll Morton is very different from Louis Armstrong is very different from Duke is very different from Prez is very different from Bird is very different from Art Blakey is very different from the MJQ is very different from Trane is very different from Sun Ra is very different from Ornette is very different from Cecil Taylor is very different from Evan Parker is very different from Franz Koglmann is very different from Anthony Braxton. Dig?

Some kinds of jazz cry out for raucous audience enthusiasm; others are best served by respectful silence. If you don't care for the latter, stay away from it, but don't pretend your insistence on the right to be boisterous is some kind of esthetic statement.
posted by languagehat at 1:55 PM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


I also find Jarrett's humming along quite annoying.

Gosh, what a profound and perceptive statement! You know, I think you may be the first person ever to say such a thing! Where would you like your prize mailed?
posted by languagehat at 1:56 PM on October 27, 2008


lazaruslong: I getcha, I just like shooting hippies.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 2:15 PM on October 27, 2008


Sounds like Navajo Sand Painting.
posted by Eideteker at 2:22 PM on October 27, 2008


Even when you're dealing with low-levl fame, it can be pretty toxic.

FAME IS TOXIC. Good bumper sticker, or better yet, get it into the elementary school curriculum. No one graduates Grade 5 without having this as rote.
posted by philip-random at 2:32 PM on October 27, 2008


Aside: It's interesting that "hippie" became a universal pejorative (from cruncher?) around the same time that "hipster" did. Both get about as much respect as NAMBLA, and pretty much no one

You can't be a hippie or a hipster unless you're at least 65-70 years old and those folks won't be around too much longer. All rational people should stop using useless, hateful words like hippie, fag, tardo, commie, white trash, and hipster. /aside

Watch Keith Jarrett act like an jerk at Umbria in 2007.

"I do not speak Italian, so someone who speaks English can tell all these assholes with cameras to turn them fucking off right now ... if we see any more lights, I reserve the right ... to stop playing and leave the goddamn city."

Not just leave the concert ... the whole "goddamn" city. ... Hello, Cleveland!

I'd love to see a security officer take him up on that dare. "Sorry, Mr. Jarrett, we can't let you stay in your hotel tonight. You'll have to take the first train out ... right now."
posted by mrgrimm at 2:35 PM on October 27, 2008


Fuck off hippy.
posted by Artw at 2:59 PM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


These lists below tend towards the avant garde, but here are some interesting picks:

From the world of solo jazz bass albums, I can recommend Dave Holand's Emerald Tears, Ron Carter's All Alone, and William Parker's Lifting the Sanctions

From this list of solo trumpet CDs I like Wadada Leo Smith's Creative Music, and especially Lester Bowie's All the Magic/The One and Only.

For solo sax I love Sonny Rollins' Solo album, Marion Brown's Solo Saxaphone and anything by Steve Lacy and Anthony Braxton, the later of whom is very challenging for the uninitiated.

For the daring there is solo percussion as well. Here you really want a drummer that has a beautiful melodic sense, so of course Max Roach tops that list with Conversation on Drums, but I also like Andrew Cyrille's work What About.

The dude who comiled these lists did yeoman's work, and there is lots in there for me, even as a long time lover of improvised music, to explore.
posted by salishsea at 3:00 PM on October 27, 2008 [2 favorites]


...Jelly Roll Morton is very different from Louis Armstrong is very different from Duke is very different from Prez is very different from Bird is very different from Art Blakey is very different from the MJQ is very different from Trane is very different from Sun Ra is very different from Ornette is very different from Cecil Taylor is very different from Evan Parker is very different from Franz Koglmann is very different from Anthony Braxton. Dig?

I totally understand and agree with the point you're trying to make, but given that this was a response to the notion of a raucous crowd at a jazz performance, I think it's worth mentioning that I have live recordings of every single one of these performers (or at least their works, I throw in this qualifier only because I'm not at home to verify this statement without my collection in front of me) in which the crowd is making audible, raucous noise. That's likely more of a reflection of the size of my jazz collection than a more profound point, but I stand by my original statement. I'm not trying to pigeonhole the vast landscape of music that is characterized as jazz, (a separate discussion I'd rather not have here) I'm simply arguing that Artful Codger's rules for a better jazz audience seem misguided to me.
posted by SpiffyRob at 3:01 PM on October 27, 2008


Jelly Roll Morton is very different from Louis Armstrong is very different from Duke is very different from Prez is very different from Bird is very different from Art Blakey is very different from the MJQ is very different from Trane is very different from Sun Ra is very different from Ornette is very different from Cecil Taylor is very different from Evan Parker is very different from Franz Koglmann is very different from Anthony Braxton. Dig?

But at the same time they're very much similar, too.
posted by jonmc at 3:04 PM on October 27, 2008


They are all clearly Wrong Jazz, as they can be enjoyed Wrongly.
posted by Artw at 3:16 PM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


learn SOMETHING about music theory. Study improvisation. Actually study it on an instrument. Realize how difficult it is to be able to play music off the top of your head in any key; you need not only technical facility and years upon years of practice, but instinct, passion and curiosity.

this ivory tower bullshit is one of the reasons why a lot of jazz -- and most atonal music -- have such ridiculously small audiences when compared to pop, rock, rap, and are for this reason quite clearly headed toward statistical and social irrelevance, and fast (at least, unlike jazz, contemporary classical music enjoys, in Europe, some financial support from the State in the form of commissions); because so many of their (more clueless) advocates seriously think you need to know "music theory" and "study on an instrument" to be able to express an opinion about music; composers like Verdi and Beethoven, blissfully unaware of such smarmy requirements, actually wrote for the people, not for music theorists jerking each other off while splitting hairs over a single bar of music in some classroom somewhere. Country boy Verdi had indeed failed his Conservatorio test in Milan, a fact that gave him a lifelong hatred for people like the commenter above. Verdi -- Bellini, too -- was indeed obsessed by success at the box office, not by how many people in the audience could play an instrument or even read music. he was very flattered by working class people's praise because he actually wrote for normal people, not for scholars. same for Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney who couldn't even read music and still wrote immortal music.

hilariously, the more rabid fans of atonal music even argue that if you don't know how to read music you're somewhat inferior to those who cream their pants for Maderna or Boulez because you don't get it. geniuses like Copland and Korngold wrote also film music, for fuck's sake. Morricone's -- or Rota's -- music will move millions long after the last musicologist who called them hacks will have died an unremarkable death after an unremarkable life.

and I say this as someone who went to the 1995 Scala concert of Keith Jarrett -- who's an asshole, yes, who the hell cares? -- and had a memorable time. and as someone who just last month went to a Karlheinz Stockhausen concert, and loved it. the "learn SOMETHING about music theory" guys need to get over themselves or they'll play in front of nonexistent audiences soon. if you seriously write for music theorists, you're a music theorist, not a composer. and you have the audience you deserve.
posted by matteo at 3:23 PM on October 27, 2008 [3 favorites]


(by the way, Oliver Knussen was conducting the Stockhausen concert -- try telling him that knowledge of music theory is necessary for music's enjoyment and he'll laugh in your face)
posted by matteo at 3:27 PM on October 27, 2008


When I was the morning show host at my university-run jazz radio station circa 92-93 I used to love this album. I could put it on just after 7am, go to the bathroom, and run over to the university center to grab a bagel and coffee, and when I got back, Jarrett would still be playing. Thank you Keith!
posted by DiscourseMarker at 3:37 PM on October 27, 2008


this ivory tower bullshit is one of the reasons why a lot of jazz -- and most atonal music -- have such ridiculously small audiences when compared to pop, rock, rap, and are for this reason quite clearly headed toward statistical and social irrelevance

Because the devoted artists making this kind of music are so concerned with their "statistical relevance"!
posted by Roach at 3:55 PM on October 27, 2008


Esteemed Mr. Jarrett,

I am compelled to inform that stomping 3.5 million copies of "The Köln Concert" into the ground would have a negative effect on our already fragile environment. The ground deserves better.

As I do not own a copy of that particular release, however, I am happily unencumbered by the problem of what to do with it. As for solo piano music, I'll stick with Solo Monk, thank you very much.

yours sincerely,

flapjax
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:17 PM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


Great solo picks, salishsea. From the bass list I'd like to pull out Peter Kowald's Was Da Ist (no question mark! I'm looking at it right now!) as a superb, if challenging, record. For anyone not familiar with him, I posted some links here (and looking at that obit post now, I realize he died over six years ago—unbelievable).

I totally understand and agree with the point you're trying to make, but given that this was a response to the notion of a raucous crowd at a jazz performance, I think it's worth mentioning that I have live recordings of every single one of these performers ... in which the crowd is making audible, raucous noise. ... I'm simply arguing that Artful Codger's rules for a better jazz audience seem misguided to me.

Fair enough; I disagree with you if you're making it a general rule, but you clearly know and love the music, and that's what matters.

But at the same time they're very much similar, too.

Since I seriously doubt you've listened to all of those guys, I take that to mean you're saying everything is pretty much like everything else. Which I guess is a defensible position.
posted by languagehat at 4:29 PM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


I have no opinion about the "ivory tower" phenomenon and I've been a music lover all my life, of all styles and genres, and theory had nothing to do with it. But I can't stand ignorance that breeds comments like "his concerts sound like an ordeal I wouldn't want to go through" or "sounds like a wacko to me" or "his grunts are annoying" or "this stuff is BORING" or "so who cares he's just fooling around for an hour" or "what a self-indulgent prima donna". I've never said that anyone needs to know about music theory in order to appreciate and LOVE music. I've performed recitals of Stockhausen back-to-back with Steve Reich of all people, and my program notes and explanations are always directed at "the interested listeners", not "musical masterminds", whose taste can be just as great/horrible as the average hipster/theory geek. However I will never make an apology for believing that ones appreciation and understanding of the music of Bach, for one example, is undeniably and immeasurably deepened and expanded by knowing HOW and WHY the harmony and rhythm and structure work in the way that they do. Just as someone who only reads fucking shitty books like The Da Vinci Code wouldn't have the best time reading Ulysses. Is that ivory tower or not?
posted by ChickenringNYC at 4:29 PM on October 27, 2008


quoth spiffyRob: ...I'm not trying to pigeonhole the vast landscape of music that is characterized as jazz, (a separate discussion I'd rather not have here) I'm simply arguing that Artful Codger's rules for a better jazz audience seem misguided to me.

Hey don't pigeonhole me either, please. :^)

In case I wasn't clear, all I'm trying to say is that SOME musical performances (regardless of genre) like Jarrett's or, say, a solo acoustic guitar, reward careful, attentive listening. I'm advocating we shoot* some poor soul who has to cough once or twice, but if you've got a hairball, FFS please get up and go out.

*gunfire is noisy. A crossbow, or a competent garroting, is preferable.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:50 PM on October 27, 2008


ooops

I'm NOT advocating we shoot* some poor soul who has to cough once or twice. Sorry.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:51 PM on October 27, 2008


Am I not allowed to think Jarrett's vocalizations are annoying, despite the fact that I own dozens of his recordings and have been going to see him play for about 30 years now? I actually have to navigate around his vocalizations when buying recordings, alas. That's one of the reasons I love Changeless so much -- whatever vocalizations are there are swamped by an ocean of music.

this ivory tower bullshit is one of the reasons why a lot of jazz -- and most atonal music -- have such ridiculously small audiences when compared to pop, rock, rap, and are for this reason quite clearly headed toward statistical and social irrelevance

This may be one of the most socially irrelevant posts I've ever read on MeFi. Try comparing the book sales of, say, Danielle Steele to, say, Robert Duncan or Denise Levertov. Steele probably sells more books out of the Hudson News in Newark airport in a week than all the books by Duncan and Levertov that ever sold. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with poetry that would be fixed in an ideal world.
posted by digaman at 4:51 PM on October 27, 2008


I've performed recitals of Stockhausen back-to-back with Steve Reich of all people

As to that, all I can do is bow. I wish I'd heard both performances! The two performances of Reich's Music for 18 Musicians I was lucky enough to see were two of the most ecstatic experiences of my life.
posted by digaman at 4:55 PM on October 27, 2008


Is that ivory tower or not?

Yes, yes it is actually. Certainly art doesn't have to speak to the lowest common denominator, but you are fooling yourself if you think that the lowest common denominator cannot grasp a piece of art at the same depth as an artist or even an aficionado. Hell, man, there's even a FPP about how birds can derive pleasure from love songs.

As for me, among the many jazz albums I have, solo or otherwise, this is among my least played. Not because I am incapable of grasping the complexities of its mastery, but simply because I don't particularly like it.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:14 PM on October 27, 2008


Since I seriously doubt you've listened to all of those guys, I take that to mean you're saying everything is pretty much like everything else.

Nah. I've listened to many of them and while they sound different, they all still sound..jazzy. Just like Deep Purple and Black Flag are ultimately more alike than they are different.
posted by jonmc at 5:45 PM on October 27, 2008


Yeah, see, "many of them" is not the same as all of them. You go listen to Cecil Taylor, Evan Parker, Franz Koglmann, and Anthony Braxton and tell me they all sound jazzy. Hint: they don't.
posted by languagehat at 6:06 PM on October 27, 2008


I'm just back from the Cork Jazz Festival, where, among other things, I saw a group of kids rocking out to some pretty chromatic stuff from The Detached Quartet, including a five year old rolling around on the dancefloor with a big grin on his face in time with the music. I've also been shushed by audience members at small jazz gigs in the past where the volume of the PA meant my whisperings were never going to be heard - I can only assume that the sight of my moving lips upset them.

However, just because Mr. Jarrett's music has been called jazz doesn't mean he has to stick to the performance standards of turn of the century New Orleans whorehouses. As long as he's upfront with his audience, he can ask for whatever he wants, and we can either indulge him, or go elsewhere for our enjoyment.
posted by kersplunk at 6:37 PM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


> Jazz is dead.

Evan Parker blowing sheets of notes for twenty uninterrupted minutes in no way precludes the ability of Jazz to get funky. If jazz's most prominent acolytes are attempting to box it in a vitrine and allow only the initiated to get near, there are plenty of people putting their own gigs together, digging grooves and calling it jazz. I loved the big band revival of the late 90s and the diverse explorations that followed it.

That said, the challenge of listening to challenging music -- jazz or other -- is that it's challenging. It's not necessarily pleasant and nice. It's no more obliged to leave you with warm fuzzies than a movie or novel is. You're forgiven for not listening to it all the time, or often. Or at all. There's no sin in not liking it.

But here's the other side of the coin: For may people popular music is bland, easily consumed and forgotten. There's little texture, no sense of depth and after listening to it a couple times there's nothing more to hear. Everything's on the surface.

For them, music to sit down and listen to has to have enough complexity and mental stimulus to require effort and also reward that effort. Keith Jarrett's solo music does the job for some people; for others it's Coltrane or Braxton or Sun Ra or Derek Bailey or people in John Zorn's sphere of influence or the worlds of Merzbow or Keiji Haino, or completely way out cats like Conlon Nancarrow. Almost all those these guys were (or are) deep into some form of popular music or another.

There aren't many people who can palate everybody I namedropped. There's enough music there in so many different forms to keep you busy for a lifetime plumbing the languages of half of them.

But get this: I don't know any fans of difficult music that don't also like easily consumed and forgotten pop music. The guys who turned me on to the people above all had diverse tastes, who loved what Duke Ellington called good music -- one of only two possible genres. It's possible to love with equal measure Outkast, "Oklahoma!", opera, and ten solid minutes of free jazz.

And difficult does not mean good. When the sound doesn't reward the effort of listening, it's just wanking. Listening to Evan Parker paired with another good improvisor can show you calls and responses, interplays and battles, solos and collaborations. But when he's playing with a people who can't keep up, it gets boring.

So this isn't a plea for you to like music that doesn't go down easy. It's a plea for you to not be a dick when the people who like it are talking about it.
posted by ardgedee at 7:10 PM on October 27, 2008 [6 favorites]


Jazz is dead.

"Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny."
- Frank Zappa
posted by krinklyfig at 7:26 PM on October 27, 2008


i went to julliard just to learn how to appreciate this album. am i fucking pissed! now dad is never going to give me money for my masters. sorry cecil taylor :(
posted by breakfast_yeti at 7:40 PM on October 27, 2008


I got this dance about architecture you guys are just gonna love.
posted by Forrest Greene at 7:51 PM on October 27, 2008


I don't know if this could account for the strange behaviour of Keith Jarrett on stage, but anyway, jazz musicians have often been pretty unpredictable. Miles Davis was criticized for performing and turning his back to the public, Charles Mingus punched his musicians in the face (he thus injured Jimmy Kneeper, I think, a trombonist, cutting his lips with the blow). That didn't prevent them to produce excellent - interesting and enjoyable - music.
It's nice to see that Kind of Blue has been mentioned here along with Keith jarrett's solo album. Actually, Kind of Blue, as it has been said, wasn't a solo album, but its spirit is closely related to what keith Jarrett's tries to achieve during his concerts. Bill Evans, in the liner notes of KOB, speaks about the art of improvisation, the way it is related to the moment, to uniqueness. Keith Jarrett has been often emphasizing that what's important in music is a process. The process of letting music unfold. To pay attention to this process, the musician and the listener shouldn't be trapped into previous performances. That's why records and live music are complementary.
posted by nicolin at 2:08 AM on October 28, 2008


I'd even argue that it's less inherently serious than many types of music, and treating jazz performances like "classical" concerts of the last 50 years is little more than an exercise in snobbery. The roots of jazz are boisterous.

Certainly, judging by the performance I saw of Omar Sosa recently (his live trio post Afreecanos), it was one of the liveliest and most fun concerts I've seen in a long time.

I'm with whoever said that so many genres of music have roots in the boisterous, but jazz is certainly a massively misrepresented form of music of late. So many people decry it without giving it the time and attention it deserves, nay needs, certainly for new listeners. So many who refuse to acknowledge the enormous breadth jazz covers, from Miles Davis and Monk, through to Omar Rodriguez's stuff, or Bellowhead and Lau mixing jazz into traditional folk (so very well!).

What I would give to have seen E.S.T. though...
posted by opsin at 6:48 AM on October 28, 2008


Hey don't pigeonhole me either, please. :^)

Duly noted. Your clarification seems perfectly reasonable. If someone starts moshing the next time I go see Mose Allison, I'll be placing an emergency call to borrow your crossbow.
posted by SpiffyRob at 6:52 AM on October 28, 2008


Jazz is dead.

No it's not. Frank Zappa is, though.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:04 AM on October 28, 2008 [1 favorite]


A little side note about Kind of Blue: I have a copy of the master tape of the Kind of Blue session, and the widespread belief that all of those tracks were first takes is an overstatement, similar to the misguided notion that Kerouac wrote On the Road in a single unrevised draft. There are several partial takes of "Blue in Green," for instance, and at least two takes of "Flamenco Sketches," which have both been released in recent years. What's fascinating about the unsuccessful takes of "Blue in Green" -- which Miles aborted with a loud whistle -- is that they're all gorgeous, just not as beautiful as the one that Miles finally chose. The one track that does, miraculously, appear to have been performed in a single take is "All Blues." Just after the take ends, the musicians are so happy that one of them -- Cannonball Adderley? -- immediately starts singing the Rogers and Hart tune "With a Song in My Heart."
posted by digaman at 8:27 AM on October 28, 2008 [1 favorite]


When KJ first started to make a splash, I noticed something that kept me away. All his phrases seem like big sighs, or whines. Like violinists who always make a big crescendo with every up-bow. It's boring and actually unromantic. It's as if KJ thinks he's Gustav Mahler, making a grand belch of weldschmerz with every one of his own breaths. It becomes "lite", but "lite" for no particular reason. Previous posts have mentioned Reich. I have related to some of R's early music, which i call lite, but it was for a completely thought-thru and systematic reason that tries to convince and seduce the listener. Also, it contains no constant moaning and whining of the surging up-bow. Give me Johnny Tatum, Johnny Hartman, "Naima", Mingus, Sun Ra, even Getz and Gilberto!!!, any day. In such music I do not have to suffer from having a man's pseudo-personality being shoved into my ears. In such music there is something bigger than the "I" taking place.
posted by yazi at 11:04 AM on October 28, 2008


oops, in my just-posted, I did not mean "Johnny Tatum"; it was a slip of the fingers.
posted by yazi at 11:05 AM on October 28, 2008


Well, what I meant is that soloists (since even in a band context, in jazz, musicians are soloists) have to try to make an unique statement. Even if they play a tune a thousand times. I think that's what jazz is all about. There would be no point to play the Köln concert note for note, there would no point (except for instruction purposes) to play the choruses taken by the musicians of KOB on various takes (btw, I was referring to the text written by Bill Evans for the liner notes).

Many musicians make a lot of sounds while playing (Lonnie Smith, Monk ...). It's better to hear a musician who's working on his melodic lines, and who actually plays what he hears (or imagines), than a musician who just randomly hits a bunch of notes which happen to be in tune (knowing them theorically) but do not really mean anything as far as the melody is concerned.
posted by nicolin at 1:42 PM on October 28, 2008


Charles Mingus punched his musicians in the face (he thus injured Jimmy Kneeper, I think, a trombonist, cutting his lips with the blow).

Mingus broke Jimmy Knepper's jaw. The blow also cost him some teeth.
posted by Wolof at 2:42 PM on October 28, 2008


Wow, Wolof! I googled to find out some more information concerning that Mingus punch story, because I had not heard it before.

I had no idea that Mingus is indirectly responsible for the smashing of instruments on stage a la Hendrix and The Who, at least according to this bio...

"When confronted with a nightclub audience talking and clicking ice in their glasses while he performed, Mingus stopped his band and loudly chastized the audience, stating 'Isaac Stern doesn't have to put up with this shit.'

While on stage at a memorial concert he reportedly attempted to crush his pianist's hands with the instrument's keyboard cover, then punched trombonist Jimmy Knepper in the mouth. Jackie McLean once stabbed Mingus after Mingus punched him, fearing the bassist was about to kill him.

Mingus's onstage destruction of an $800 bass, prompted British rockers The Animals – avid fans who witnessed Mingus's characteristic explosion at a London show – to emulate the outburst, starting a trend of rampant outro destruction of musical equipment in 'rock theater' popularized by Jimi Hendrix and The Who, which continues to this day.

posted by lazaruslong at 4:29 PM on October 28, 2008


Well. Never having seen a MeFi post about Jarrett before, I am surprised, elated, and depressed.

First of all, if you don't like jazz or improv, why did you post a comment?

Secondly, I agree with jazz fans who don't like KJ. My reasons are complicated and personal, as they should be with such an intimate art form. Jazz cultivates an intimacy that other art forms come close to, but do not quite match. The immediacy of sound and the nature of improvisation has something to do with it.

Monk and Sun Ra are my heroes; Keith Jarrett is good, but not great. My opinion.

KJ is a diva, but I do not hold that against him.

I could not do what he does, so props for him. His dissing of his own best selling album is certainly bizarre: thanks for posting this.
posted by kozad at 6:07 PM on October 28, 2008


Jazz is still very much alive. One very brilliant young pianist is still playing some amazing traditional-style jazz, with a piano-bass-drum trio.

I just bought the Koln Concert as an MP3 album. This is the first time I've listened to it since high school and I still like it (despite Keith Jarrett's douchebaggery).
posted by mike3k at 5:06 PM on October 29, 2008


« Older Abu Nidal mystery solved   |   Experience the censored Chinese internet at home! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments