I think that playing any kind of live music requires a bit of a two-way accommodation between the needs of the audience and of the musicians. I don't think it needs to be difficult per se, but there needs to be something in it for the musicians.

This might sound self centered, which is a frequent stereotype leveled against jazz musicians, but on the other hand, why bother? There are other things we could be doing with our time. And I don't think that playing "difficult" music is incompatible with delivering a high quality performance, which is always my mission.

▲

iainmerrick 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I think it’s worth distinguishing “difficult to perform” and “difficult to listen to”. Something like hard rock or metal with lots of flashy solos can be technically impressive, but it’s not difficult to “get” -- when done properly it just gets you in the gut.

The accusation usually levelled at cutting-edge jazz (fairly or unfairly) is that it’s so niche that it is difficult to get; that it’s left behind any pretence at being popular music. Many listeners would even go further and sneer “they’re just playing notes at random!” or “you’re just pretending to like it!”

I do wonder whether good-sounding, easy-to-get music is purely a matter of fashion (being just different enough to be interesting, but conventional enough to be accessible), or if to some degree there’s another axis of skill/difficulty in great pop music, of making it catchy and universal.

	▲	analog31 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think that since at least from the time jazz began to mature, like maybe in the 1940s, there has been a back-and-forth between crowd-pleasing and dance-able music, and more exploratory and artistic music. The Stan Kenton Orchestra traveled with two separate "books," one for dance gigs and another for concerts. Ellington's material, of which there was a lot, is quite imaginative. To me that's OK. When jazz ceased to be responsible for forming the backbone of popular music, it triggered a more experimental period, including some ventures that were pretty far out, such as free jazz and free improv. Jazz also experienced a shift in focus -- not uncontroversially -- by becoming an object of academic study. I think we're in a period right now when bands are seeking more audience friendly material. Now, the big-band I play in is in some sense "enthusiast" music. We have a small but loyal audience of people who happen to like this kind of stuff. But in another of my bands, two of the players are actively composing new material, and it's arguably listen-able by any standards. Maybe we're in a third era, where we're free from responsibility for making popular music, but also free from responsibility for establishing the stature of jazz as a "serious" art form, and can return to the business of pleasing ourselves and our audiences.