A jazz musician's outburst against cameras

[Robert]

Take a look at this. Keith Jarrett is one of the finest jazz players who ever lived. He doesn't like to be photographed when he is performing, as the clip shows. Well guess what happened? The jazz festival where he was playing banned him from future performances because of this. That's terrible! That would never have happened to Led Zeppelin or Sex Pistols, now would it? But because he's a jazz musician, it seems like he's way over the top. I think he should be applauded! Experience his performance on his terms, or stay home. :bravo:

BB9mMABRM0c

[tjcurtin1]

Hmmm... I respect his right to make that a condition, but his comments were enormously disrespectfully put. I don't know if he figured that no one would understand him or what, but that kind of language was beyond rude, and way out of line, IMHO.

[Robert]

Yeah I guess you are right Ted. I'm thinking more about the point he is making. It's also getting increasingly harder to avoid photography, since everyone and their dog has camera cell phones and what not. Hard to stay out of the limelight if you are a performer, but on the other hand, audiences should respect the performer's wishes. Some sort of compromise is going to have to be the end result, or else there won't be a performance at all.

Jarrett is somewhat known to be like this too. Maybe he is the rebel of jazz musicians! :rotflmao:

[peachhead]

That's ridiculous.
When you become a performer, that doesn't give you the right to be childish; and that's what he was, IMO. It's not my privilige to listen to you- it's a privilige for you to be paid to do it. You chose to be a public personality so deal with cameras and fans.
I would have walked out of the performance at that point. I don't have time for people like that.
To the promoters of the festival- Good on ya.

[Ch0jin]

WAY out of line in my opinion.

If you want a venue to be photography free, your managers need to strike a deal with the venue whereby all mobile phones and camera's are seized at the point of entry and returned after the gig. I've seen it done before. If that is not done then you MUST expect hundreds of punters to be snapping away with mobile phones and little P&S jobs. It's the 21'st century and it's a fact of life for any gig I've been to in the last ten years or more. I've done a bit of live music photography as both a hobby and for money, as some of you would have seen from my flickr page, and these guys with their P&S cameras flashing all over the place have trashed some of my shots as a result of exposure issues, so I know how annoying it can be from that point of view, but c'mon. If you don't want to interact with the public "warts and all" stay in the studio.

Robert, are you saying the Sex Pistols and Led Zep would never have been banned for swearing, or for denying photography? (although I agree they would have been banned for neither)

Oh and a tiny footnote.... Professionals and amateurs like me don't use a flash in these situations anyway, hence the de-facto rule of "three songs no flash" for most gigs I've been involved with.

[Robert]

All I'm saying that in the world of rock music, no one would have paid much attention to something like this. Since he is a jazz musician, with all the "sophistication" attached to its label, people suddenly get horrified. The fact is that this man is one of the giants of all time in the world of jazz.

We don't know the background details here either, it could be that something went wrong between the management and the organizer as far as the cameras go. What it is really about is the music, and if some performers feel so distracted by cameras, people should not be allowed to bring them to the show.

[peachhead]

I can see your point, Robert, and you're very possibly right. But to me, he would have been just as wrong, whatever kind of performer. You don't abuse the fans who pay your salary.
Then again, I've been told more than once that I don't think normally.

[Ch0jin]

All I'm saying that in the world of rock music, no one would have paid much attention to something like this. Since he is a jazz musician, with all the "sophistication" attached to its label, people suddenly get horrified. The fact is that this man is one of the giants of all time in the world of jazz.

I dunno man. I was at the Sydney BDO where a young girl died in the pit, and shortly before that happened, the Texan band At The Drive In, walked off because the crowd were moshing too hard. A girl died for crying out loud, and I still remember people b*tching for months about how slack ATDI were for walking off stage. (and how slack Limp Bizkit were for staying ON as the ambo's raced in, although they didn't find out till much later what had happened)

I don't think it's got anything to do with language or attitude, I think it's got everything to do with respect. I'd have walked out on any band regardless of genre if they were that disrespectful to the audience.


We don't know the background details here either, it could be that something went wrong between the management and the organizer as far as the cameras go. What it is really about is the music, and if some performers feel so distracted by cameras, people should not be allowed to bring them to the show.

Yeah maybe, and I'm not regularly in attendance at Jazz gigs so I'm not qualified to comment I guess, but my gut reaction is; If you can't hack performing in front of a "typical" crowd, then as I said. Stay in the studio. If there is a mistake made and there are cameras and you did not expect them, I say man up and do the gig, then take it out on your management and the venue. NEVER the people who paid to see you.

[sunvalleylaw]

Robert, to the extent rock musicians or any other person (certain pro athletes come to mind) get a free pass for such behavior, they should not. Jazz musicians should not be held to a higher standard, but all musicians, performers, athletes and really any of us, should treat each other with some respect. The audience also should respect the wishes of the artist and not use flash or audible photography.

In Neil Young's "Live at Massey Hall" CD, you hear him ask the audience in a good humored way to hold the cameras until the applause and then take the pictures, and explain that it messes with his performance. The audience applauded and seemed to respect his wishes. Respect begets respect, usually. Just my opinion and view of the world. Plenty would disagree and feel that it is all part of the show I suppose.

[Rocket]

Once an artist starts charging money, he/she must expect to give up a certain amount of rights to the people that make the purchase. It's the (common knowledge) price of fame that goes with bartering with artistic endeavors.
Same goes with celebrities... one can't aspire to be a "public" figure and then start demanding terms on YOUR choice that common knowledge tells you goes with that deal.

[Geraint Jones]

This guy seems to be an uptight petulant a##hole, and thats just not jazz man. A mate of mine likes to remind me of a Stranglers gig he went to back in the seventies when spitting on the band was in vogue, after asking the audience to stop Jean Jacques Burnell took a hit of phlegm whereupon he launched himself at the culprit and proceeded to beat seven bells out of him. Wunderbar .

[R_of_G]

I agree with Jarett's sentiments, though as SVL suggested, he'd be more likely to get a better response if he were less abrasive in his approach.

A few years ago we went to see the band CAKE. Lots of folks had their little cellphone cameras going off every two seconds. John McCrea (the singer/rhythm guitar player) made a comment along the lines of "That's right folks, take our picture. Your memories of the show aren't good enough. If you don't take a picture it'll be like you weren't really here." It was delivered very sarcastically obviously and he was laughing but it came across that he wasn't thrilled with all the cameras. Some people around me got pissy just about that. "How dare he tell us what to do?" Well, it's his show, not yours.

My point is, I don't buy into the "artists have to put up with whatever the fans do because they are artists" argument. Not every artist tours and I have no problem with the ones that do trying to lay out ground rules in order to make the setting amenable to them so they can perform.

If the answer is "this is the 21st century, cameras are everywhere" then it begs the question about allowing recording of shows. Video cameras and audio recorders are everywhere too. Should artists just allow bootlegging of their gigs because the technology is out there?

I also think anyone who would leave the show because the artist made a negative comment about taking flash photos was never there for the music in the first place.

[marnold]

From the video it looks like they had just come out to begin their performance and he begins with that? I think that comment from Cake is equally stupid. People take your picture because THEY LIKE YOU. They want to remember the moment. If you can't handle that then perhaps being in the public eye is not for you. It's not like they are paparazzi chasing after your car or peering in your window at home. It's a public concert in a public place. If they want to take an "It's my show, not yours" attitude they will soon find themselves playing to nobody in particular.

[bigoldron]

I remember many years ago when Larry Gatlin pitched a few little "hissy fits" about people talking during his performances. He lost a lot of fans over that. This jerk and any other performer who acts like this should lose fans and should be banned from performing. I understand performers not wanting their shows broadcast illegally, but there's a right way and a wrong way to get people to co-operate.

Tactfulness goes a long way in dealing with people. When guidelines are known upfront and presented in a positive fashion, most people will adhere to them. The sad part of that is, in today's society, more and more people are being jerks themselves and believe that rules don't apply to them. Guess it's "all about me and what I want".

But, if I'd paid my hard-earned money and was not one of the "violators" he was referring to, then I'd have marched right out and demanded my money back. Jarrett's actions are inexcusable! Life's too short to have listen to this cr@p.

[SuperSwede]

"the privilige is yours to hear us".... very very humble man...

[peachhead]

I also think anyone who would leave the show because the artist made a negative comment about taking flash photos was never there for the music in the first place.

Maybe on a mere negative comment...but I don't classify what I saw there as a negative comment. That was a childish outburst.

I can listen to music in the privacy of my own home, without abuse, and I often do. And as much as I like the music, the attitude of the artist can go a long way towards souring the experience. If I want to spend my money on children, I have two at home that appreciate it much more.

[thearabianmage]

It's wasn't that bad, really. It's a bit odd how he has some sort of dislike for photography and it was rude in the way he put it, but if people don't like it, they can leave themselves.

And I know what you mean, Robert, about him not being treated the same way as a rock start would be treated under the same circumstances. I think, simply, the reason is because people would usually expect 'better' from a jazz musician than a rock musician. That statement does, though, have its exceptions (Miles Davis. . .)

And, in all fairness, the Sex Pistols made their name off of being rude. They got plenty of flack for it, too.

[R_of_G]

Maybe on a mere negative comment...but I don't classify what I saw there as a negative comment. That was a childish outburst.

I can listen to music in the privacy of my own home, without abuse, and I often do. And as much as I like the music, the attitude of the artist can go a long way towards souring the experience. If I want to spend my money on children, I have two at home that appreciate it much more.

I agree that it was a negative comment gone too far, but on personal terms, had I been there I wouldn't consider it necessarily directed at me as I wouldn't be taking his picture anyway. I can listen to his music at home, I have plenty of it, his electric work with Miles and especially his post-Miles acoustic work is fantastic. To me it would be a privilege to see Jarett play live. I can see where others might see it differently though. Everyone has the right to how they want to spend their money.