With this posting, I wanted to work through some definitions of roles such as spokesman, symbol, stereotype, and activist. Again, I struggle with the problem of choice, that not everyone can choose what they stand for or what social movement will benefit from their life and artistic decisions. This is important because as artists trying to make meaningful music and hopefully trying to make some novel discoveries, we will become symbols, spokesmen, stereotypes, or activists with and for what we do.
I would venture to say that whenever you present something novel that you stand behind, you beome a symbol of it. Look at Charlie Parker. To the best of my knowledge, he did not have some political agenda, or even an artistic agenda such as the maintenance of a thriving club scene or music education. I wouldn’t say that he just wanted to play, but I don’t think it raises much argument to say that his foremost goal by far was to realize the music he could hear in his head. However, he became a symbol for this new music and also helped to found a stereotype of the be-bopper as intellectual and troubled. Also, he did indirectly promote music education as his solos present exceptional teaching materials. Parker is a symbol, but not necessarily a spokesperson. What came after Parker, the copies and people imitating his life (even if out of sincere admiration) turned his life experience into the stereotypical bop-era experience. Parker is a symbol and a stereotype, and it doesn’t seem that he chose or defined either of these roles for himself but let others worry about the labels.
Now if we look at a person such as Wynton Marsalis, we can attribute both the roles of spokesman and symbol. He promotes what he wants to promote (spokesperson) and is successful at his craft to the point of canonization (symbol), but to determine which role has been more influential on the other proves difficult. He has cemented his role as a symbol of musical excellence through, among other notable achievements, winning a Grammy for both classical and jazz recordings and through this spotlight has been able to promote his agenda. However, his particular agenda of jazz education and presence in gold-standard performance institutions has created a new layer of symbolism for his already complex character. Although the music is of obvious importance to Marsalis, he is definitely not only “in it for the music” and through his life achievements has been able to himself define his symbolic status.
I use the word “activism” to talk about promoting an agenda that benefits from your artistic achievements as the spotlight provides a visible platform, but that does not necessarily tie to your personal life stories or struggles. Activism is dependent on choice, because nobody will assume your music or proceeds from ticket sales have anything to do with the preservation of the rainforest unless you tell them. Activism is promotion in the freest degree, as you are consciously choosing to associate with that cause. Compare that to someone who is a spokesperson, let’s say, an Asian jazz artist who indulges interviewer’s questions about ethnicity issues. He cannot escape from being Asian in this predominantly black/white community, he can put himself in healthy places but cannot entirely escape stereotyping or racist hiring practices. When being Asian is still novel in jazz, he cannot escape becoming a symbol for Asian achievement if he creates meaningful and fresh artistic contributions.
With this posting I hoped to find more clarity on how musicians (their music, lifestyles, and professional choices) promote extra-musical agendas.
No comments:
Post a Comment