Skronk wrote:
Does any musician need a cultural award? A pat on the back with a formality, and maybe a nice check.

No.

Maybe if their contributions have been extramusical and overwhelmingly positive; improving race relations in the 30s might be one example.

I doubt Duke asked for any recognition ever. Probably just a piano.

Stevester, you sound like such an ass. Jeez.

Skronk wrote:

fischer wrote:...If the release ends up having any artistic merit what-so-ever, it can survive by taking the traditional release path... So long as a NIN sticker is slapped on the front...

"Traditional release path" as in a tangible format? Reznor's been releasing all of his latest stuff as cd's and vinyl about a couple of months after their torrent release. It sounds as if you don't think too highly about releasing music for free.

Yeah. I guess I'm saying that you can usually find most other NIN releases at HMV or Virgin Megastore or some crap, and that deviation from this practice indicates to me that NIN are trying to either jump on the bandwagon (which is officially played-out) or need a stunt to up the price per unit since they can't actually sell records any more. My volition seems to generally be aimed at "big" bands though... As usual...

Not knocking the Duke. I'm sure he was an honorable, hard-working musician and a "cool" "cat."

It is fair however to notice that rock music and musicians are still treated like worthless, disposable shit, a half-century after demonstrating their significance while Jass music is patronized formally (monetarily) and intellectually, and has been for, oh, fifty years or so.

There is no rock musician who can slide through life on the back of a ready-made audience the way just about anyone who deigns to play jass music can. If you can't get a gig as a name performer, there are jobbing "function" bands you can side in, and there are literally millions of dollars endowed annually toward support of your Jass music that will never be available to rock musicians. Drink deep from the trough.

That's my point. Being black in the '30s sucked for sure -- hell, being black now is no walk in the park. Being a Jass musician, not so much. People who don't even like your music feel compelled to give you money to play it. I am even taxed for your benefit.

Cry me a fucking river.

Where is there a ready-made jazz audience? Tell me where b/c there are more than a few musicians I know who could benefit from that kind of info. Talk about thee most divided and cynical crowd ever. They make underground rock fans seem as unified and adoring as Barbara Streisand fans.

I agree that rock musicians are probably looked upon as jokesters and druggies who are creatively inept by the kind of people who fund such things. Well, it's not hard to believe that jazz musicians were the epitome of that stereotype for quite some time as well. So long as bands like Kid Rock and the Rolling Stones fall under the umbrella of rock music how could it's image as a whole be taken seriously enough to benefit from grant money? They don't know about Slint or the Melvins. But to them, I'm sure they think it's all rock music. In all fairness, if you are going lump all jazz musicians together as lazy freeloaders, you ought to have to share a genre with Kid Rock or whatever he's called.

I think there are a lot of similarities in the underground jazz of the 70s and underground rock of the 80s-early 90s. It was after the 70s, arguably jazz's most experimental time, that it somehow dropped it's drug image and then this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEA_Jazz_Masters

If rock music had almost completely died out to dance music and was considered a shrinking art form rather than a commercial force, would you vote to have grants be given to rock musicians if given the chance? Is it that the most visible jazz musicians shouldn't get a piece of the grant pie or should rock musicians get the same treatment? Would it just be funding dying art forms that ought to be left for dead? I'm sure you are well aware that rock bands get grants in other countries. They don't even have to be very good.

I mean, if anyone could make a case for a rock band deserving a grant to make a truly great album it's probably you. But you think that everyone should just be part-time amateurs, right?

How about this: if you somehow finagled a truckload of grant money for another EA for the benefit of bands, musicians, etc., wouldn't that be a good thing? It sounds like a good thing to me, I dunno.

I should add that the majority of the people getting grants wouldn't get them if I were in charge. The same way that band that wears all the masks probably isn't your music, a lot of jazz is boring bs and not my music. I'd would say that Slint or the Melvins are more my music than most jazz also. Just sayin. But i'd give this guy a grant:
http://www.kullhammar.com/

steve wrote:Not knocking the Duke. I'm sure he was an honorable, hard-working musician and a "cool" "cat."

It is fair however to notice that rock music and musicians are still treated like worthless, disposable shit, a half-century after demonstrating their significance while Jass music is patronized formally (monetarily) and intellectually, and has been for, oh, fifty years or so.

It's a self perpetuating cycle. Look at the worthless rock bands being touted by the media, mainstream or otherwise. There are plenty of faceless, nameless jazz musicians playing for nothing but the joy of playing, while less creative and sterile acts move ahead, critically and financially.

steve wrote:There is no rock musician who can slide through life on the back of a ready-made audience the way just about anyone who deigns to play jass music can. If you can't get a gig as a name performer, there are jobbing "function" bands you can side in, and there are literally millions of dollars endowed annually toward support of your Jass music that will never be available to rock musicians. Drink deep from the trough.

Because these 'jass' musicians are plugged and supported to a certain extent, does that mean their art is somehow less valid? I'm sure you can see a parallel between interesting and creative rock and jazz acts, who can still thrive without the recognition given to bigger named artists. While I don't care for most recognized modern jazz artists, but I can't support some kind of venom directed at the genre. Those who make an impact (one that actually matters besides recognition) will survive, while much of the "top roster" fades away.

Rick Reuben,

dude,

relax.

I have noticed that jass musicians have it pretty easy. I have not said I would change that if I could, I just noticed it. I do however think jass musicians ought never to complain about how they are treated for this reason.

That's all. They have it pretty easy. Not begrudging them taking the free ride they're offered, not opposed to people in charge of such things doling out this kind of jass welfare, just making note of it on the way by.

Jass musicians, you have it pretty easy. Shut up. When there are hundreds of university music departments and a Lincoln Center auditorium and MacArthur grants and Public Library openings and city-named funded festivals dedicated to supporting rock musicians, and when their fees are unrelated to their ticket sales, and when they can sport orchestras on tour, and when there are rock band laureates of locales... then I will probably suggest that they shut up too.

But lets start with jass musicians. Shut up.

steve wrote:I have noticed that jass musicians have it pretty easy.

Except for the whole music thing.

I don't think they're complaining either; too busy practicing.

givemenoughrope, there is no universal law that dictates that jazz music is more complex/difficult to play/meaningful/intellectually stimulating than rock music.

There are plenty of jazz pieces that are simple, or without much meaning, or just plain stupid, just like in rock music.