Abair takes groove angle on jazz Saxophonist opens summer concert series with own mix of music By DAVE TIANEN
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Last Updated: May 7, 2003
Potawatomi Bingo Casino's Northern Lights Theater opened its Jazztrax series of summer concerts Wednesday with new saxophonist Mindi Abair.
The series is sponsored by smooth jazz station WJZI-FM (93.3), and Abair's debut album has topped Billboard's Contemporary Jazz chart among such brother pipers as Kenny G. Indeed, Abair's first single, "Lucy's," has been a huge hit on smooth jazz formats.
There's just one problem. Abair says she's not a smooth jazz musician.
And judging by Wednesday night, she's a honest woman.
Smooth jazz tends to be about mood and atmospherics. Abair is more about groove. In that respect, she's closer to R&B-influenced players such as Tom Scott and David Sanborn. She also has more than a little in common with Candy Dulfer, most obviously a grounding in pop-rock songcraft. In that regard, John Taylor of Duran Duran helped out on the album, and she counts the Go-Go's as a major influence. And, of course, Dulfer and Abair both have that whole blond babe with a horn thing.
Which is not to say she can't craft a pretty melody or a deft mood piece. She can. When she wants, Abair has the great gift of being able to write a simple, evocative pop tune. "Remember" falls in that camp. So did the a slightly exotic ode to London night life, "Momo," and the sultry late night nod to the Margarita, "Salt and Lime."
But mostly she's about groove. "Lucy," "As Good As It Gets," "Right On" and "Flirt" are all first-rate dance fodder, boosted in no small measure by the superlative skills of bassist Andre Berry, formerly with Tom Scott and TLC.
Although she's hardly a straight-ahead jazzer, she does count Cannonball Adderley among her favorites, and Wednesday's set included a nod to Cannonball's "Work Song." I never heard the original, but Abair's version has kind of a heat-of-the-night-vintage-Jimmy-Smith lurid quality. It sounds like it should have been on the soundtrack of "Body Heat."
Among her other charms, Abair occasionally sings. That happened mainly on her version of Eagle Eye Cherry's "Save Tonight." She doesn't have the greatest range in the world, but there's a certain girlish charm that's disarming in small doses.
Judging from the performance of the album and the way she won over the Northern Lights crowd, Abair has more than enough talent and appeal to give the Boney James/Richard Elliot tribe some serious competition.
From the May 8, 2003 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
>Although she's hardly a straight-ahead jazzer, she does count Cannonball >Adderley among her favorites, and Wednesday's set included a nod to >Cannonball's "Work Song." > I never heard the original,
"That's why I'm a jazz critic!"
>but Abair's version >has kind of a heat-of-the-night-vintage-Jimmy-Smith lurid quality. It sounds >like it should have been on the soundtrack of "Body Heat."
It has a kind of Stravinsky quality. It sounds like it should have been in a Disney musical.
It has a kind of Faulknerian quality. It sounds like it should have been in a Hallmark greeting card.
Great. Now we've got people who know nothing about jazz trying to tell us that there's a big difference between smooth jazz and r/b jazz. One is about 'mood and atmospherics' and other is about 'groove'. Wow. The Milwaukee Sentinel-Journal should be ashamed to publish such crap. On top of everything else, we get a guy who can't even write. So he's not a writer and he's doesn't know jazz, but he can read a press release and he can tell a 'blond babe with a horn' from David Sanborn. Sounds qualified to me.
But at least Ms. Abair has her roots in the right place. 'She counts the Go-Go's as a major influence'?????????
Also nice of the reviewer to use the term 'Boney James/Richard Elliot _tribe_' while he's writing from an Indian reservation.
> Abair takes groove angle on jazz > Saxophonist opens summer concert series with own mix of music > By DAVE TIANEN
> Milwaukee Journal Sentinel > Last Updated: May 7, 2003
> Potawatomi Bingo Casino's Northern Lights Theater opened its Jazztrax series > of summer concerts Wednesday with new saxophonist Mindi Abair.
> The series is sponsored by smooth jazz station WJZI-FM (93.3), and Abair's > debut album has topped Billboard's Contemporary Jazz chart among such > brother pipers as Kenny G. Indeed, Abair's first single, "Lucy's," has been > a huge hit on smooth jazz formats.
> There's just one problem. Abair says she's not a smooth jazz musician.
> And judging by Wednesday night, she's a honest woman.
> Smooth jazz tends to be about mood and atmospherics. Abair is more about > groove. In that respect, she's closer to R&B-influenced players such as Tom > Scott and David Sanborn. She also has more than a little in common with > Candy Dulfer, most obviously a grounding in pop-rock songcraft. In that > regard, John Taylor of Duran Duran helped out on the album, and she counts > the Go-Go's as a major influence. And, of course, Dulfer and Abair both have > that whole blond babe with a horn thing.
> Which is not to say she can't craft a pretty melody or a deft mood piece. > She can. When she wants, Abair has the great gift of being able to write a > simple, evocative pop tune. "Remember" falls in that camp. So did the a > slightly exotic ode to London night life, "Momo," and the sultry late night > nod to the Margarita, "Salt and Lime."
> But mostly she's about groove. "Lucy," "As Good As It Gets," "Right On" and > "Flirt" are all first-rate dance fodder, boosted in no small measure by the > superlative skills of bassist Andre Berry, formerly with Tom Scott and TLC.
> Although she's hardly a straight-ahead jazzer, she does count Cannonball > Adderley among her favorites, and Wednesday's set included a nod to > Cannonball's "Work Song." I never heard the original, but Abair's version > has kind of a heat-of-the-night-vintage-Jimmy-Smith lurid quality. It sounds > like it should have been on the soundtrack of "Body Heat."
> Among her other charms, Abair occasionally sings. That happened mainly on > her version of Eagle Eye Cherry's "Save Tonight." She doesn't have the > greatest range in the world, but there's a certain girlish charm that's > disarming in small doses.
> Judging from the performance of the album and the way she won over the > Northern Lights crowd, Abair has more than enough talent and appeal to give > the Boney James/Richard Elliot tribe some serious competition.
> From the May 8, 2003 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
In a more serious vein, it just so happens I was interested in picking up Ms. Aabir's new CD for my niece who is in elementrary school and on her second year of alto sax. Not too many femlae sax players she can have as role models, and I figured Jane Ira Bloom would be over her head :)
Has anyone actually HEARD this CD? The more rock/pop the better I would think to keep the interest of a 10 year old gitl.
Brian Rost <r...@stargen.com> wrote: >In a more serious vein, it just so happens I was interested in picking >up Ms. Aabir's new CD for my niece who is in elementrary school and on >her second year of alto sax. Not too many femlae sax players she can >have as role models, and I figured Jane Ira Bloom would be over her head :)
>Has anyone actually HEARD this CD? The more rock/pop the better I would >think to keep the interest of a 10 year old gitl.
Don't underestimate the intellect of a ten year-old, especially where music is concerned!
Yes, as I mentioned at the top of this thread this is one of my favorites of late. Much better than Candy Dulfer's new one. Maybe you can enjoy it together, eh?
> In a more serious vein, it just so happens I was interested in picking > up Ms. Aabir's new CD for my niece who is in elementrary school and on > her second year of alto sax. Not too many femlae sax players she can > have as role models, and I figured Jane Ira Bloom would be over her head :)
> Has anyone actually HEARD this CD? The more rock/pop the better I would > think to keep the interest of a 10 year old gitl.
Brian - I have heard her. So have you if you've heard any of 5 or 6 'moanin altos', as I like to called them. That's the problem with smooth jazz. There's so little personal interpretation that it really doesn't matter who it is. Her stuff is extremely overproduced in my opinion which is usually a sign that there's not much behind it.
BUT - the even bigger issue is how she is marketed. As an experiment, I had my 9 year old daughter, who wants to play sax next year in band, and who is a pretty good pianist look at the CD and hear some of it. She saw the cover and remaked "That's sexist". In my opinion, little girls have enough of that shit thrust upon them without hiding it behind a sax and calling it jazz. It Mindi was a very plain looking woman who played like she does, you can forget about ever hearing her.
There are some really good female saxists who really play the instrument that she might dig.
> In a more serious vein, it just so happens I was interested in picking > up Ms. Aabir's new CD for my niece who is in elementrary school and on > her second year of alto sax. Not too many femlae sax players she can > have as role models, and I figured Jane Ira Bloom would be over her head :)
> Has anyone actually HEARD this CD? The more rock/pop the better I would > think to keep the interest of a 10 year old gitl.
> Brian - I have heard her. So have you if you've heard any of 5 or 6 > 'moanin altos', as I like to called them. That's the problem with smooth > jazz. There's so little personal interpretation that it really doesn't > matter who it is. Her stuff is extremely overproduced in my opinion which > is usually a sign that there's not much behind it.
I didn't really hear that. What makes you think she's "extremely overproduced"?
> BUT - the even bigger issue is how she is marketed. As an experiment, I had > my 9 year old daughter, who wants to play sax next year in band, and who is > a pretty good pianist look at the CD and hear some of it. She saw the cover > and remaked "That's sexist".
> BUT - the even bigger issue is how she is marketed. As an experiment, I had > my 9 year old daughter, who wants to play sax next year in band, and who is > a pretty good pianist look at the CD and hear some of it. She saw the cover > and remaked "That's sexist". In my opinion, little girls have enough of > that shit thrust upon them without hiding it behind a sax and calling it > jazz. It Mindi was a very plain looking woman who played like she does, you > can forget about ever hearing her.
After I wrote my last message I was thinking about what you had written and I really can't fathom your daughter's reaction to the cd cover. It's a picture of a woman holding a saxophone. If you haven't seen it, look here:
> Perhaps you could elaborate on what qualities of the cover typify the "shit > thrust upon" little girls (presumably in the USA, I'm guessing).
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but, yeah in the USA, kids are exposed to way more than they need to be at a young age.
I guess Britanny Spears would be a good example but there are many, many more. All you need to do is visit a junior high or high school in the any US city and you'll find girls dressing provacatively. The schools have to have rules about showing the midrift, showing cleavage, etc. Kids are sent home regularly to change clothes. I got my daughter a subscritpion to Girl's Life magazine when her school was selling mags. This is a mag that's supposed to be for pre-teens and teens. I was appalled by what I saw in there. A good portion of the articles are about how to attract boys, get boys, prevent pregnancy, wear makeup, etc. It's like Cosmopolitan for little girls.
In the rock/pop world things are changing a little bit. There's sort of a backlash against the Brittanys and some of the young female singers are being promoted as an alternative to all the sex, etc. That's a good thing, I guess.
As far as Mindi is concerned, I don't blame her, necessarily, for the way she is marketed. Take a look at the her page on the Verve site and you'll see a "Mindi Abair Photo Gallery" with a bunch (14) of what I would call provocative photos that happen to have a sax in them. You can also win a trip to LA to see Mindi perform, you can send a Mindi animated flash eCard to your friends and be 'the talk of the town'. You can download pictures of her for your wallpaper, you can watch a video of Mindi, etc. etc.
My point being, it's not about her music. Do you think the Backstreet Boys would want, oh lets' say Tim Ries, whose a fantastic jazz saxophonist and played with the Rolling Stones, on the gig? No. They want a hot, sexy woman to play some licks and do the show. Same thing with Prince and Candy Dulfer. Did Prince use Candy Dulfer for her saxophonistic abilities? You'll never convince me of that.
I just don't think that we need to promote that type of stuff to young girls. Most are not going to look like her and Candy and most are not going to get the gigs because of the way they look, not how they play.
As far as being overproduced, I guess it depends on what you're used to listening to. When I hear synths, etc. layered so thickly that's it's hard to even pick out the sax sound, and the sax sound itself is so compressed that it almost doesn't sound like a sax, I call that overproduced.
Hey, I could be wrong. Maybe she can play her ass off. If so, I hope we get to hear it, but so far, GRP is going the other way and I don't blame them. They want to sell records and, as we all know, sex sells.
Brian - I would start with DIVA the all-female big band. She might dig that big band sound if she's in school and it might get her interested in jazz band.
There are many others I could mention but what I would suggest is searching the archives in alt.music.saxophone. There are regular discussions of female saxists and who's doing what. If you can't find that, let me know and I'll get the specifics for you.
Sum1 wrote: > > BUT - the even bigger issue is how she is marketed. As an experiment, I > > had > > my 9 year old daughter, who wants to play sax next year in band, and who > > is > > a pretty good pianist look at the CD and hear some of it. She saw the > > cover > > and remaked "That's sexist". > After I wrote my last message I was thinking about what you had written and > I really can't fathom your daughter's reaction to the cd cover. It's a > picture of a woman holding a saxophone. If you haven't seen it, look here:
It's the "come hither" look she is giving, IMO. And I'll bet she wears something different when she is performing.
-- Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...
But I still don't see why the picture is sexist - sexy, perhaps, but demeaning? Why? The only thing revealed is a bit of midriff; many women show much more.
Obviously Mindi capitalizes on her looks, but why shouldn't she? Simply because she chooses to use that angle in her marketing doesn't necessarily mean its because she can't play. Sure the Backstreet boys want someone who looks good on stage. But if thats all they want then the choices are endless and there's no need to pay a graduate of Berklee College.
"Even in college, my saxophone teacher, Joe Viola, he would constantly tell me, 'Get out there with your own band. Go for it. Do your own music,' " Abair said. "He knew I wrote a lot and he very much encouraged that.
"When I first moved to Los Angeles, no one would hire me or knew who I was. One of the only ways I could get out there and play was to have my own band. I'd write out charts for all my songs and hire different people and play all the clubs."
The strategy paid off: It led to stints with Jonathan Butler, Adam Sandler, the Backstreet Boys, Mandy Moore and Bobby Lyle.
Abair comments on a few of them:
BACKSTREET BOYS: "I had such a good time on the road with them. It was a life experience; I had to soak it in, because who gets to do this, playing in front of 40,000 people?
"I played sax, keyboards and percussion for them. When they changed clothes, and believe me it took a while, I got do a sax solo. What was cool for me was a lot of girls in the audience loved to see a woman up there breaking the rules. I got so many e-mails and letters from girls and even their mothers saying 'I'm practicing more' or 'I'm taking up an instrument and you've really inspired me to go after what I love, that it's possible to do this.'
"There aren't many role models to show girls that, 'Hey, you can be whatever you want to be.' "
"Glenn Wilson" <glenn.wilsonNOS...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> > Perhaps you could elaborate on what qualities of the cover typify the > "shit > > thrust upon" little girls (presumably in the USA, I'm guessing).
> I can't speak for the rest of the world, but, yeah in the USA, kids are > exposed to way more than they need to be at a young age.
> I guess Britanny Spears would be a good example but there are many, many > more. All you need to do is visit a junior high or high school in the any > US city and you'll find girls dressing provacatively. The schools have to > have rules about showing the midrift, showing cleavage, etc. Kids are sent > home regularly to change clothes. I got my daughter a subscritpion to > Girl's Life magazine when her school was selling mags. This is a mag that's > supposed to be for pre-teens and teens. I was appalled by what I saw in > there. A good portion of the articles are about how to attract boys, get > boys, prevent pregnancy, wear makeup, etc. It's like Cosmopolitan for > little girls.
> In the rock/pop world things are changing a little bit. There's sort of a > backlash against the Brittanys and some of the young female singers are > being promoted as an alternative to all the sex, etc. That's a good thing, > I guess.
> As far as Mindi is concerned, I don't blame her, necessarily, for the way > she is marketed. Take a look at the her page on the Verve site and you'll > see a "Mindi Abair Photo Gallery" with a bunch (14) of what I would call > provocative photos that happen to have a sax in them. You can also win a > trip to LA to see Mindi perform, you can send a Mindi animated flash eCard > to your friends and be 'the talk of the town'. You can download pictures of > her for your wallpaper, you can watch a video of Mindi, etc. etc.
> My point being, it's not about her music. Do you think the Backstreet Boys > would want, oh lets' say Tim Ries, whose a fantastic jazz saxophonist and > played with the Rolling Stones, on the gig? No. They want a hot, sexy > woman to play some licks and do the show. Same thing with Prince and Candy > Dulfer. Did Prince use Candy Dulfer for her saxophonistic abilities? > You'll never convince me of that.
> I just don't think that we need to promote that type of stuff to young > girls. Most are not going to look like her and Candy and most are not going > to get the gigs because of the way they look, not how they play.
> As far as being overproduced, I guess it depends on what you're used to > listening to. When I hear synths, etc. layered so thickly that's it's hard > to even pick out the sax sound, and the sax sound itself is so compressed > that it almost doesn't sound like a sax, I call that overproduced.
> Hey, I could be wrong. Maybe she can play her ass off. If so, I hope we > get to hear it, but so far, GRP is going the other way and I don't blame > them. They want to sell records and, as we all know, sex sells.
> > > BUT - the even bigger issue is how she is marketed. As an experiment, I > > > had > > > my 9 year old daughter, who wants to play sax next year in band, and who > > > is > > > a pretty good pianist look at the CD and hear some of it. She saw the > > > cover > > > and remaked "That's sexist".
> > After I wrote my last message I was thinking about what you had written and > > I really can't fathom your daughter's reaction to the cd cover. It's a > > picture of a woman holding a saxophone. If you haven't seen it, look here:
> It's the "come hither" look she is giving, IMO. And I'll bet she wears > something different when she is performing.
You could probably verify that by looking for some live photos on her website.
I haven't seen Mindi live, but I did see Candy a few months back and she wore a blouse that revealed her midriff together with a pair of olive green cargo pants, the kinds with pockets on the legs.
I've seen Virginia Mayhew live at the SJ Jazz Festival a couple of times and can vouch for her a serious sax player. Her albums have gotte decent reviews (I haven't gotten around to a purchase yet, Nini Green is my incliniation). Just a suggestion.
"Sum1" <shridu...@-spamoff-yahoo.com> wrote: >But I still don't see why the picture is sexist - sexy, perhaps, but >demeaning? Why? The only thing revealed is a bit of midriff; many women >show much more.
>Obviously Mindi capitalizes on her looks, but why shouldn't she? Simply >because she chooses to use that angle in her marketing doesn't necessarily >mean its because she can't play. Sure the Backstreet boys want someone who >looks good on stage. But if thats all they want then the choices are >endless and there's no need to pay a graduate of Berklee College.
I wouldn't say it is necessarily sexist. There are plenty of women who choose to present themselves provocatively without men controlling their choices.
You wonder what reasons one would have for objecting to the kind of presentation used in Mindi's 14 picture gallery on the Verve site. The objections have more to do with aesthetic and artistic decisions than they do with other concerns.
What is she telling people with that layout?
1) The music is not enough, you need the sexual innuendo. 2) I am willing to use extra-musical content to make you want to buy my CD. 3) The artistic quality of the photographs is not important; what is important is that they make you want me.
The questions about her performance are not of the "can she play?" variety. They are of the "what does she have to say?" variety. All I can hear her saying is "buy this fashionable image of me". The photographs are not even artistic; they are pure fashion, cloying and manipulative -- designed from the ground up to produce a conditioned response from the male.
Consider what the artist confronts and is confronted with. You have your entire life, every waking hour, to exemplify your art. In Ms Abair's case, she has the money as well. So you've got your entire life to use to make a point, and enough money to get by -- what have you got to say dammit? Is this all she could do? If so, then she has squandered herself as an artist. But one has to suspect that she does not want to be an artist, and that in fact, she does what she does for the money, the glamour, and the fame. While you might say that is art to a degree, I would say that it is flawed because her art is getting people to buy her art. Somewhere in that circular clause, the art itself gets lost in an infinite regress.
Just so you don't think I can't distinguish within the genre, I have heard Smooth Jazz that is somewhat pretty to my ears, and somewhat artistic, even if I don't choose to buy it or listen to it on my own. I think Yoshiaki Masuo is a talented guitarist with a nice touch, and what he plays is musically interesting (just not my cup of tea).
> You wonder what reasons one would have for objecting to the kind of > presentation used in Mindi's 14 picture gallery on the Verve site. > The objections have more to do with aesthetic and artistic decisions > than they do with other concerns.
> What is she telling people with that layout?
> 1) The music is not enough, you need the sexual innuendo. > 2) I am willing to use extra-musical content to make you want to buy > my CD. > 3) The artistic quality of the photographs is not important; what is > important is that they make you want me.
Well, that's certainly what YOU've read into it.
Sure, she looks good and she's using that to help sell her music. But isn't the musician supposed to want to people to listen to her music? Is it not acceptable to use all means available to get people to lend an ear?
> The questions about her performance are not of the "can she play?" > variety. They are of the "what does she have to say?" variety. All I > can hear her saying is "buy this fashionable image of me".
Possibly you were convinced of that before you ever heard the music. If not, well, then that's what you hear. What I hear is a young woman having a good time doing what she likes doing and what she has spent her life working on.
> Consider what the artist confronts and is confronted with. You have > your entire life, every waking hour, to exemplify your art.
Why would you want every waking hour to exemplify your art? Isn't that a bit extreme? Do you mean to say that taking a dump, getting your hair cut, and taking out the trash (just to name a few examples) should in some way be consciously connected with your creative life?
> In Ms Abair's case, she has the money as well. So you've got your entire > life to use to make a point, and enough money to get by -- what have > you got to say dammit? Is this all she could do? If so, then she has > squandered herself as an artist.
First of all, saying "Let's have a good time" is enough for me. I don't always need music to have somber resonance.
Secondly, who are we to judge how this young lady has thus far spent her life and used her abilities? Perhaps others would find you lacking on examination. Are you prepared to bow to another's criticim of how you have lived your life?
How old is Mindi? Is she at the beginning of her career or the end?
> But one has to suspect that she does > not want to be an artist, and that in fact, she does what she does for > the money, the glamour, and the fame.
Who says these are mutually exclusive categories?
> While you might say that is art > to a degree, I would say that it is flawed because her art is getting > people to buy her art.
So to be an artist you have to give up all thought of making money, or even wanting people to listen to your music?
"Sum1" <shridu...@yahoo.com> wrote: >"Luke Kaven" <l...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>> You wonder what reasons one would have for objecting to the kind of >> presentation used in Mindi's 14 picture gallery on the Verve site. >> The objections have more to do with aesthetic and artistic decisions >> than they do with other concerns.
>> What is she telling people with that layout?
>> 1) The music is not enough, you need the sexual innuendo. >> 2) I am willing to use extra-musical content to make you want to buy >> my CD. >> 3) The artistic quality of the photographs is not important; what is >> important is that they make you want me. >Sure, she looks good and she's using that to help sell her music. But isn't >the musician supposed to want to people to listen to her music? Is it not >acceptable to use all means available to get people to lend an ear?
You're conflating normative notions with aesthetic notions. It is not a matter of the deontology of it (what's forbidden, obligatory, permissible, supererogatory, etc.). Within legal limits, she can do what she wishes. One could even be deceptive up to a point, for example, and still be within the limits of the law.
But when it comes to aesthetics, there is a difference. Are all means of getting people to lend an ear equally good in aesthetic terms?
>> The questions about her performance are not of the "can she play?" >> variety. They are of the "what does she have to say?" variety. All I >> can hear her saying is "buy this fashionable image of me".
>Possibly you were convinced of that before you ever heard the music. If >not, well, then that's what you hear. What I hear is a young woman having a >good time doing what she likes doing and what she has spent her life working >on.
I am not taking issue with the fact that (ex hypothesi) she has a good time doing what she likes doing after spending her life working on it. It is the aesthetic value of that (given the particulars) which is in question.
>> Consider what the artist confronts and is confronted with. You have >> your entire life, every waking hour, to exemplify your art.
>Why would you want every waking hour to exemplify your art?
These are the resources you have as an artist. Of course, how many use every waking hour to exemplify their art. But those are the resources, and that is the challenge. Everything a musician plays is an opportunity to be artful.
>> In Ms Abair's case, she has the money as well. So you've got your entire >> life to use to make a point, and enough money to get by -- what have >> you got to say dammit? Is this all she could do? If so, then she has >> squandered herself as an artist.
>First of all, saying "Let's have a good time" is enough for me. I don't >always need music to have somber resonance.
How do you distinguish between Danielle Steele and Shakespeare? If you want to say that they are both artists, I'm not going to take issue. But surely, you would distinguish between them in terms of aesthetic value. Shakespeare was popular, funny, entertaining -- but there was a lot more to it. Doesn't that figure into your aesthetic judgments? If not, then how *do* you distinguish between them? Would you throw Shakespeare out of the English Literature courses in favor of Danielle Steele in the belief that they are of equal value? It seems you commit yourself to such.
>Secondly, who are we to judge how this young lady has thus far spent her >life and used her abilities? Perhaps others would find you lacking on >examination. Are you prepared to bow to another's criticim of how you have >lived your life?
I wouldn't doubt that others would/have/will find me lacking on examination. But I'm not a career artist, and these judgments would not be concerned with art.
>> But one has to suspect that she does >> not want to be an artist, and that in fact, she does what she does for >> the money, the glamour, and the fame.
>Who says these are mutually exclusive categories?
I didn't say that they were. I was suggesting that in her case, she does what she does *merely* for money, glamour, and fame. What she gives in return is more Danielle Steele than Shakespeare.
>> While you might say that is art >> to a degree, I would say that it is flawed because her art is getting >> people to buy her art.
>So to be an artist you have to give up all thought of making money, or even >wanting people to listen to your music?
There is no such entailment, so I can't really respond.
> >Sure, she looks good and she's using that to help sell her music. But isn't > >the musician supposed to want to people to listen to her music? Is it not > >acceptable to use all means available to get people to lend an ear?
> You're conflating normative notions with aesthetic notions.
I usually do that only after eating too much cabbage. My apologies.
What I should have said is, if she can use her good looks to get the public to give her music a listen, then more power to her. Other musicians should be as fortunate.
> Are all means > of getting people to lend an ear equally good in aesthetic terms?
I can't think of a negative example. Maybe you can.
> >Why would you want every waking hour to exemplify your art?
> These are the resources you have as an artist. Of course, how many > use every waking hour to exemplify their art. But those are the > resources, and that is the challenge. Everything a musician plays is > an opportunity to be artful.
When you're on the squatter squeezing out a loaf, are you working on the art of your recording business? Or is it possible that you're enjoying the comics page or even a skin mag?
> How do you distinguish between Danielle Steele and Shakespeare?
There are lots of ways to distinguish between the two, but probably the most useful is that many people would rather read read the former than the latter. In fact, most people can more accurately comprehend the former than the latter.
> Would > you throw Shakespeare out of the English Literature courses in favor > of Danielle Steele in the belief that they are of equal value?
For an English Lit course I would presume that the purpose is to give students some understanding of the history and development of English literature, in which case Shakespeare weighs more heavily.
But what is this analogy meant to represent? Mindi is Danielle, and Shakespeare is ?
> I wouldn't doubt that others would/have/will find me lacking on > examination. But I'm not a career artist
Depends on how you define art, eh?
> >> But one has to suspect that she does > >> not want to be an artist, and that in fact, she does what she does for > >> the money, the glamour, and the fame.
> >Who says these are mutually exclusive categories?
You. "She does what she does for money, not becasue she wants to be an artist." In other words, to be an artist requires giving up any interest in financial gain.
One of the problems with responding piecemeal to a thread is that instead of one wayward thread, there arise a half dozen or more wayward threads. I'm going to consolidate my response instead.
1) I said that one typically does not exemplify themselves as an artist at every waking moment. But I did say that these are the resources that the artist has, and the challenge that they face is how to make use of their resources. Being an artist does also entail living in the broad sense and being receptive to experience, so that when one is producing art, one has something to talk about besides life in the practice room or studio. In that sense, an artist *can* be exemplifying themselves as an artist during much of their waking life, and many do. [Your scatological parodies aside.]
2) You are evasive, or at least incomplete, on the question of aesthetic value. You do acknowledge that Shakespeare was influential on English literature. Yet you seem to imply that this is like a "mere historicism", viz., that it's only value is to talk about the past. Certainly there are a lot of people who read Shakespeare and see his plays performed because they are among the most sublime experiences, sublime enough for the plays to be presented and enjoyed continuously for five hundred years going. You are missing the sense in which a work of art is preserved (or carried over into succesive generations) because it demonstrates persistent value. Aristotle, Plato, Locke, Hume, Kant (and Shakespeare) are all read today because they still say something important to us today, as much as they are read because they played a role in a chain of historical developments..
By contrast, I would wager that in the future, nobody will judge Danielle Steele to be of sufficient value to be included in the canon of literature. Similarly, in the future, nobody will judge Mindi Abair to be of sufficient value to be included in the musical canon. However, I would wager that Charlie Parker, and Thelonious Monk, and John Coltrane will still be judged worth preserving.
3) I think there is a danger in buying into the cult of glamour and fashion when it comes to art, even popular art, or even journalism for that matter. A friend of mine used to produce programs for Lifetime. She located the world's foremost acknowledged expert on the subject of a given documentary for inclusion in the program. The executive producers refused to include this expert, and the reasons they cited were that she was "too old, and too ugly". The producer was forced to get a commentator of no particular distinction, specifically because she happened to be younger and "prettier". This also happens in music. Younger and prettier talents are selected over older and less photogenic ones, who often don't even make the cut for that very reason, and that reason alone.
Giving people whatever they want is sometimes pathological. We should educate people to not abuse cocaine or heroin, or else they are not sufficiently the agents of their own actions, and society breaks down. We should also prefer that investors determine their investments on the basis of true information, or else the markets will collapse.
4) You attribute to me the belief that being well off and being a food artist are mutually exclusive. I never did say that the pursuit of money and fame was in and of itself a bad thing. I said that the MERE pursuit of money, fame, and glamour had a low aesthetic value.
