What Is (Musical) Authenticity?
Today when I finally had a chance to catch up on my jazz (blog) reading, I found this video on this blog, which prompted all sorts of confused thoughts to fly across my brain. Let me first get this out of the way: I like Jason Parker’s blog (especially the 100 CDs project he just started), and I’m not trying to call his musical judgment into question. It’s just that, well….The Matt Wilson video he posted didn’t do much for me, except make me angry. Why? When I tried to pinpoint my reasoning (because it’s not enough to just say “that sucks”) I landed on the concept of authenticity. That tune, that video, and from what I’ve heard, that group in general…it’s just not authentic music.
So what does that mean? It’s not that these guys are bad players. Matt Wilson can play the drums well, and that’s a fact. He can play them better than a huge percentage of guys. He’s made a living doing so for a long time, so this clearly isn’t about his abilities. But why does he have to make a circus act out of a jazz performance?
I know, it sounds like I don’t have a sense of humor. Jazz can be fun too, right? It
doesn’t have to be all serious academic stuff. I guess the problem for me is that there’s a distinction between making a joke and becoming a joke. When The Bad Plus cover Blondie, the genius of their take is that the humor comes across without leaving behind the integrity of the music. These guys are no strangers to musical humor, but they take it seriously. And they don’t have to jump around on stage or wear wigs to get their point across. It’s as if, in an effort to dispel the myth that jazz is no fun, Wilson&Co tickled everyone to death. It’s overkill, and it’s contrived.
What’s the message here? When Acoustic Ladyland’s Pete Wareham (also of Polar Bear) screams into his saxophone, it doesn’t sound like he’s doing it to get a rise out of the audience. He doesn’t need to get down on his knees and act like a clown. How can a similar scream into a similar saxophone here sound so different? One is pure expression, the other is pure folly. I don’t think they needed to name that song “School Boy Thug” for us to have gotten the point.
Similarly, take this review Nate Chinen wrote in the NYTimes about the Industrial Jazz Group’s recent performance at the Bell House:
“By contrast, the Industrial Jazz Group, based in Portland, Ore., and led by the composer Andrew Durkin, injects novelty into every corner of its aesthetic. Performing with a pair of shrill, scenery-chewing singers, Tany Ling and Jill Knapp, the band pursued an archly absurdist ideal, cribbing a move or two from Charles Mingus and quite a few others from Frank Zappa. Ultimately it was a showy mess, rendered sour by a slick of smugness. (There was a shirtless dancing bassist in a Roman centurion helmet, and a trombonist in a pair of skimpy briefs. It was understood that you were supposed to find this subversive and hilarious.)”
I’ve not heard much of IJG, but I can only assume that group and Wilson’s share a similar approach to jazz. Chinen put his distaste better than I could, and maybe personal distaste is all that I’m actually talking about in the long run….But also maybe not.
If everyone’s opinion is the same, then the world is a mush of equal value, a giant sea of oatmeal. It doesn’t seem right that music can’t have definitive qualities to it, beyond the subjectivity of “good” and “bad.” While certain genres may appeal more to someone than others, I think authenticity is one of the only truly distinguishing factors between good music and bad. All the instrumental skill and musical communication in the world can’t fabricate authenticity if the intent isn’t there from the outset.
I’d love to get input on this. I’m not trying to be a snob here. But you have to believe in what you’re doing, I think. Otherwise, nobody else will either. And that’s no joke.
