Is it our job to entertain?

[Tbeers]

As performing musicians, should we be concerned with entertaining the listener/viewer? Or should we perform what we personally want to hear, without regard to audience response? Or alternatively, should we strike a balance of some kind?

Interested in hearing your thoughts.... I think this is an important question for jazz musicians.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Well taste is personal, audiences are fickle - you can't please all of the people all of the time!

I think you can only hope that what you do, entertains/interests you and that there will be enough people who agree!

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Tbeers

I think this is an important question for jazz musicians.

I'm not so sure - if you decide to be a pop singer, for example - then there is no doubt you have to entertain an audience!

If you have decided to be a Jazz musician, then you have already cut yourself off from most of the people who demand to be entertained!!

[Sam Sherry]

Spot on, Bruce.

Part of the reason I chose, twenty-five years ago, not to make a living in music is because I wanted to avoid financial pressure to make musical compromises.

People DO respond positively when performers play music they love with real passion. People who don't know jazz from kebjar are willing to take a little time to listen to us because they can see that we care deeply about what we're doing. After all, many folks can go through a day without seeing someone who cares deeply about what s/he is doing. When they come across it that's automatically a certain amount of interesting.

What I AM willing to do is to take a moment to tell people what's going on. It is not "entertainment" or pandering to say, "Chris Humphrey on the piano! We're going to play a song now written by Woody Shaw, the late, great trumpeter and composer. It's called 'Little Red's Fantasy' and it features . . . ." It may seem like a small thing but people like to know what's happening.

What I AM willing to do is to try to arrange the music in a fashion that draws people in, if I can do it without any compromise in the actual music. 90 minutes of "Head - horn - horn - piano - bass - drums - head" is unlikely to be the highest expression of musical art. Introductions, interludes, background parts, harmony writing: All these ADD to the musical content AND draw the audience into the music. "Entertainment" generally connotes dumbing the music down to reach people. What I'm talking about instead is giving the audience a few handholds in the midst of the improvisational thicket and doing it in a manner that, if anything, tends to bring the musical content up.

Sorry; I rattle on. Next!

[drurb]

I appreciate Sam's eloquent response. I think he described an intelligent approach to "balance." Like most things in life, it's a tradeoff. We can probably all think of examples of extremes. On the one hand, musicians who leave the audience behind in order to engage in some esoteric, inaccessible exercise usually including technical wizardry. At the other extreme are the groups who do "dumb it down" to produce predictable "ear candy." In a sense, they insult the audience by assuming that those listening are simply not up to the journey.

Ideally, audiences are not passive. There is an interaction. Money aside, if it didn't matter at all, we'd all be content to simply rehearse with our buddies and never gig.

[brianrost]

When you are playing for an audience of jazz afficianados you are still entertaining them, eh?

I mean, I don't go to jazz clubs to be tortured

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by brianrost

When you are playing for an audience of jazz afficianados you are still entertaining them, eh?

I mean, I don't go to jazz clubs to be tortured

I agree generally - although I know at my local Jazz club there is a core of people who don't want to hear Free Blowing or electric Instruments played at high volume - esp. BG! And they really want to hear melodic soloing on tunes they know - i.e. "standards"!

Whereas I like to hear original tunes that are interesting, played well with great sound!

[Tbeers]

Great post Sam! I think I agree with everything in it, I don't know what else to say.

And drurb, I like what you say about extremes. One time Brad Mehldau performed at my high school (also his high school, haha) without any backing. It was just solo piano. He sort of played as though he were in his house practicing alone. Never said anything to the audience, sort of acting as though there was no one around. It was actually a bit awkward, I think, and the audience (including a number of avid jazz fans) just didn't really get into it. Which is a shame, because Brad is a monster of a pianist and I have seen him give great shows at other times. I think it was just something about the way he approached this performance that really alienated the audience. A part of me admires him for playing what he loves, without a care for what others might think of it. On the other hand, if you're selling tickets for people to come see you play, maybe you owe them something as customers? I'm really conflicted on this, and I feel horrible referring to audience members as "customers". It's a tough issue with regard to professional art of any kind. On the one hand it's your art and your expression that comes from within you. On the other hand, if you're doing it for money and you want people to buy, then you need to have something to sell.

[mje]

If you do it for money, you're an entertainer.

How far you want to go in building a rapport with the audience, communicating with them, and perhaps educating them, depends on how much respect you have for them.

[Chasarms]

I tend to think that entertainment is a passive experience. That is, the consumers are entertained. The performers are doing that whatever it is that they do.

However, people do choose their entertainment venue with some expectation. I don't go to a country concert and expect a 12 member, coed dancercize team to be cranking in the background for the whole show.

Of course the degree to which the performers cater to those expectations varies. That's probably the real debate here anyway.

I do think musicians of any type should be appreciative of the consumers in any venue and clearly express as much in their own way. The only really unforgivable sin for me as a performance consumer is genuine indifference to the attendees. It isn't a matter of art or vision or compromise. It is a matter of respect and courtesy.

[poptart]

Originally Posted by mje

If you do it for money, you're an entertainer.

How far you want to go in building a rapport with the audience, communicating with them, and perhaps educating them, depends on how much respect you have for them.

+ 1

If you work in the entertainment business, you have to be entertaining because it is a business.

However you don't have to be entertaining if it is not your job - but it helps

[drurb]

Originally Posted by drurb

Ideally, audiences are not passive. There is an interaction...

Originally Posted by Chasarms

I tend to think that entertainment is a passive experience. That is, the consumers are entertained. The performers are doing that whatever it is that they do.

Wow, on the face of it, it would seem that we have diametrically opposed views. I wonder if that's really the case. In my view, many jazz performances I have attended were active, not passive, in two different ways. The first is that a really talented artist draws me in and makes me "follow" his thought in what seems a very active exercise. The second is more obvious in that the audience responds to what is happening with their own vocal responses, etc. It seems that thinking about the differences between listening to a recorded vs. a live performance is, perhaps, the quickest way to appreciate some of the passive vs. active processes. True, even a recorded performance can make one "think" and "follow" but even that aspect seems very different in kind when the performance is live.

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Sam Sherry

90 minutes of "Head - horn - horn - piano - bass - drums - head" is unlikely to be the highest expression of musical art. Introductions, interludes, background parts, harmony writing: All these ADD to the musical content AND draw the audience into the music. "Entertainment" generally connotes dumbing the music down to reach people. What I'm talking about instead is giving the audience a few handholds in the midst of the improvisational thicket and doing it in a manner that, if anything, tends to bring the musical content up.

Amen, bro.



And this last part can't be said too many times:

Originally Posted by Sam Sherry

90 minutes of "Head - horn - horn - piano - bass - drums - head" is unlikely to be the highest expression of musical art.

[fingers]

Originally Posted by mje

If you do it for money, you're an entertainer.

I think if you play in a public place you are and entertainer. You wouldn't have the gig at all if it weren't for the audience. The content of the performance is irrelevant in my opinion.

[neal davis]

I think entertainer is a broad word, I can play a money gig and the band can still be cooking, be playing good solos but maybe we can't get as out there as we may like to, we are entertaining, I can do a gig where I'm playing free music and still entertain people. as long as you are playing for people you are entertaining them, not everyone will like what you do 100% of the time but as long as you play in front of people you are entertain just like fingers said.

[Pcocobass]

Originally Posted by fingers

I think if you play in a public place you are and entertainer. You wouldn't have the gig at all if it weren't for the audience. The content of the preformance is irrelevant in my opinion.

I think there are a lot of great views presented here, as I have also thought very much about this topic. I tend to agree with the above statement. If you are playing music in public for people who are paying for music, you are an entertainer of some form or another.

I get a little annoyed by musicians who have a completely self-indulgent attitude at gigs. Especially if you are playing in a venue for folks who are not into jazz. I think one needs to be aware of the audience at some level. I also think it's our responsibility to make jazz or any other "art" music more accessible for the general public. Hence, we are all entertainers and should care about the audience.

[jazzbassnerd]

I think that caring about the audience and performing what we, as artist (hopefully), "want to hear ourselves" are not necessarily opposites. And this is not to say that any of you say that they are.

I think, as Sam said above, if we present the music as something we care deeply about and share this with the audience, they can at least appreciate it on that level, even if they don't like that particular piece.

I've seen it in some recitals I've given with some pretty weird sounds (lots of electronics on the bass). Briefly describing what's going on in the written music and in the effects, how they relate, why they're there and what they're meant to do all helps the audience to feel like they are "there." I'm getting very tired of performances in any genre where no one on the stage ever speaks to the audience. I'd rather listen to the CD.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I don't feel as though one must compromise their art to reach more people. It is much easier to adjust the way one presents the art to the audience that will invite them in.

[arnoldschnitzer]

Some musicians are entertainers. Some are true artists. Occasionally you find both attributes in one performer. Generally though, musicians tend to label such people as "sellouts". An example is George Benson. Amazing guitarist and jazz improviser, and has a commercial side as well. Also Louis Armstrong was an early example. Nat King Cole, Jaco, etc., etc...

Then there's Kenny G.

[jmarcus2]

Originally Posted by Tbeers

As performing musicians, should we be concerned with entertaining the listener/viewer? Or should we perform what we personally want to hear, without regard to audience response? Or alternatively, should we strike a balance of some kind?

Interested in hearing your thoughts.... I think this is an important question for jazz musicians.

Yes to the first question.

Strike a balance to the second.

What do we do when we perform onstage? O.K. If you don't you won't be there very long.

Sometimes if you are an "original" act playing unfamiliar music, the audience may have to be brought along or "educated". But If you are playing covers, you won't have that luxury.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by fingers

...The content of the performance is irrelevant in my opinion...

Huh? I suppose you mean the particular style, genre, etc. is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by neal davis

...as long as you are playing for people you are entertaining them...

Goodness! So untrue! Check here.