Recording in the Jazz world

Stefano Zenni, in one of his texts, contrasts the needs of recording companies with "performative" needs

As an aside, if the possibility to record had not existed, we would have missed out on some great masterpieces... even if this may seem (and probably is) against jazz aesthetics... or improvisational realities in a broad sense.

I agree with Frank, but I would ask you this question: what problems can arise from the fact that an improvisation (jazz) is recorded? ;-)

DrJellyfish wrote:

what problems can arise from the fact that an improvisation (jazz) is recorded? ;-)

None for me, but improvisation is a form of expression that is born and consumed in a unique way, tied to a specific moment, so what happens on that particular evening cannot be repeated in the same way.

If I want to hear DrJellyfish, I have to frequent the venues where he performs, and every night I will be able to listen to something unique, even if it perhaps starts from the same standards.

The record allows, as is happening more and more frequently, one to just write down the notes and repeat Coltrane literally. Practically, the record serves as a score... see YouTube and various Japanese people

So you will say... but then don't composers fall into this category?

Sure, if I really must... I want to put everything on paper (or on record)... I want to decide everything at the table properly, I don't want to be constrained by my technical problems as an instrumentalist (in short, even though I play the piano, I am not Pollini), I decide how the instrumentalists must dialogue, I can draw from the instrumental gesture and from ideas born from an intimate improvisation... then shaped at will, etc.

All to say, returning to the initial discussion, that when one knows that the improvisation will be recorded and therefore always available in the same way forever and by the community (today we can say the whole world), one approaches improvisation differently... perhaps less freely, even to the extreme consequence (read between the lines) of moving from paper. And if you think about it, this has already happened a long time ago in the Western classical world.

Anyway, even in the classical world, composers improvise; what happens is slowing down the flow of time, that is, using supports that are difficult to erase (see gloss and India ink... sure, I know there are razor blades, but there is honesty towards oneself) ... once a note is chosen (even taking an hour to do so)... there is no turning back.

I don't know, just some ideas put forth freely as if I were thinking out loud...

DrJellyfish wrote:

what problems can arise from the fact that an improvisation (jazz) is being recorded? ;-)

I know it's not nice to answer a question with a question, but I would like to turn the issue around.

When you know you are being recorded, how do you conduct yourself during the improvisation and how do you deal with any unwanted incidents? Do you have the temptation to listen back and say, should I do it again? Clearly, before releasing a record on the market...

... I am asking, because instead I would like to understand how you would experience it in a free performance...

It was naturally a provocative question. It is a query that could relate to any documentation system: even a recorded Toscanini concert will not produce in us the same effect that it produced in those who were present at the time. But this applies to any event not experienced firsthand; we can refer to photographs, videos, history books, and so on...

Of course, in the case of improvisation, this is amplified, but the principle is the same.

Even when a record is made, beyond the sensations of the moment, through the various recording stages the sounds change compared to the original, even more so in the case of a digital recording.

If we consider recording as a form of documentation, I believe it has enormous utility; if we start from the premise that we will never experience the same sensations as those who were there at that moment, the discussion can indeed expand into infinite fields.

Responding to JazzMania, I would say that the problem shifts from the listener to the performer; certainly the fact of knowing that the performance will be recorded could have an impact, but you don't always know...

Nowadays most concerts are traceable on YouTube, for example. Do you think that everyone who played in those concerts would have played differently being aware of this fact? And I mean from Toscanini to Parker, from Benedetti Michelangeli to Zucchero and so on.

I believe it is one of the advantages and at the same time one of the limitations of our era: once upon a time, if you wanted to know how Bach sounded, you had to go to him... ;-)

Furthermore, from this idea by OscarP, another interesting discussion could begin: how one positions oneself psychologically (or mentally) towards a listening experience:

if you were attending a Parker concert where he plays behind a curtain, you would experience it in one way; if they then told you that you were listening to a recording, everything would change; or even if I played you a recording of me playing the sax (something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy) and told you it was Coltrane at age 3, you would listen to it multiple times in ecstasy, only to beat me up the moment I revealed the truth...

- and this latest example is anything but fantasy, look at what happened to Argan with the false Modes...

Interesting and engaging discourse. In my opinion, from Toscanini to Parker, from Benedetti Michelangeli to Zucchero, it is as if they were always recorded, given the level and the numbers of their audience.

I find recording a convenience, but it is always a faded image of what actually happens. Even the fact that there is a little button that adjusts the volume is symptomatic

DrJellyfish wrote:

how one approaches a listening session psychologically (or mentally):

I don't know, but sensuality has often been discussed, see in particular certain posts by Modale and Frank; when I listen to something, I must feel an attraction... so, rather than predisposition, I am more for "rapture," that is, being attracted to the point of wanting to continue what I have started or am listening to... leaving everything else aside.

it happens to me sometimes when listening to Jarrett; it is one of the few cases in which I forget to analyze what he does, something that is almost inevitable when someone plays your instrument.

DrJellyfish wrote:

it is one of the few cases in which I forget to analyze what he does, something that is almost inevitable when someone plays your instrument.

In fact, sometimes it seems to me a bit of a limitation; in short, wouldn't a disinterested listening be nice?

You might say, Jarrett is so good that he distracts me from my professional bias... so are the others less good?

Eh..eh...

no, it is a subjective fact