No Trouble With Gary (Peacock)

yawuh · June 29th, 2005, 08:30 AM

John Dworkin's article on the apparent elitism of Gary Peacock (vis a vis the Elvis Costello story) closes with a quote from Keith Jarrett, made in reference to Wynton Marsalis. Names are substituted in order to call out Peacock on his faux pas. But I wonder: would Jarrett himself have backed Costello on short notice? Maybe 25 years ago...

I say 'apparent' elitism because a) I don't think an artist having musical standards is a bad thing, and b) I think Peacock is old enough to call his own shots. And we don't know Peacock's personal opinion of Costello to begin with, do we? Maybe Gary disliked "Oliver's Army" and "Pump it Up", etc., or maybe he'd never heard Elvis' music and didn't care. No one's really done much digging into Peacock's side of the story; instead, it becomes the old egalitarian "argument" - everything's great and why say something's better than the other?

Dworkin again: "He chose his vision of being an artist over being a compassionate human being. This is always the wrong choice."

Oh dear. If it weren't for Peacock's "vision" as an "artist", we wouldn't give a damn who he was in the first place, and he could be compassionate in a grocery store for all anyone cared. Was Elvis compassionate in showing up and assuming everyone would be on their knees begging to play with him?

Maybe Gary should have just played the songs and been done with it. But I don't think his refusal was totally out of line, and since this story is pretty old at this point, I wouldn't expect any apology from him either. Like EC would even care.

(And next time the symphony's performing, I'll show up with my electric guitar loop soundscapes and ask to sit in. Those bastards better not judge me...)

wordsandsounds · June 29th, 2005, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yawuh

(And next time the symphony's performing, I'll show up with my electric guitar loop soundscapes and ask to sit in. Those bastards better not judge me...)

That is awesome. Maybe I'll take my bass and see if I can sit in too.

I agree with most of your points, but honestly, how could this thing even damage his reputation. The people that care about his reaction are the same people that hate Jarrett's comments, Mengelberg's, etc. There's nothng wrong with having opinions and voicing them except for the fact that in the current age people crucify you for them. It's why we live in such a homogenous culture. Never say or stand apart. The people that don't care about how he did not want to play with such and such a musician (any persons perogrative to work or be with someone else) won't care about this at all.

Tritone Sub · June 29th, 2005, 09:09 AM

Pardon my ignorance but I don't understand the context. Do you have a link to the article you reference? I love both Gary Peacock and Elvis Costello and would like to understand what all the fuss is about. Thanks.

burning dog · June 29th, 2005, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yawuh

it becomes the old egalitarian "argument" - everything's great and why say something's better than the other?

I think it's worse than the "old" egalitarian argument. The old egalitarian argument is that all people are of equal worth, not that everybody is as good as everybody else at almost everything!

yawuh · June 29th, 2005, 09:20 AM

Tritone Sub - I found the article in the AAJ "Articles" section, although the story itself has been around for a while, in various places. Forget where I first heard of it.

codewarrior · June 29th, 2005, 10:14 AM

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=18112

Sorry if I have to disagree, but that sounds like a real jerk move to me. Being onstage I've had to do all kinds of things with all kinds of people, and part of being a musician is that if you have something like this (especially considering that it was a tribute to somebody for their birthday) you just suck it up and do it.

Oh and, yawuh, it didn't say Elvis just 'showed up' and demanded to sing. He was *scheduled* to sing, and people knew about it and were there to see him perform for Lee's celebration. It wasn't a freaking symphony orchestra performance at a concert hall for crying out loud, it was a jazz birthday bash at a club.

If it was Gary Peacock's gig, obviously he has total say over what goes down. But it wasn't. He was a guest in *someone else's* house, it was Lee Konitz' group AND his birthday, and what does do but disrespect Lee AND Elvis by refusing to play with the singer, and then disrespect the genre of rock to a magazine writer. That's just downright childish.

Music is supposed to be about having fun and relationships between people, not just notes on a page. Even people like Herbie and Chick have done all kinds of collaborations with people like Dave Matthews, Steve Vai, the Foo Fighters, Guru, etc. And Gary Peacock isn't even at that level of skill or reputation. So how does he have the nerve to be elitist.

I don't know, this kind of stuff makes me sick. I haven't liked every person I've ever played with, but when it's not your gig you just suck it up, smile, and go with it and try to have the best attitude you can. You don't just refuse to play because of your personal opinions about their music, or your 'musical standards'. It's not your freaking gig to begin with. And who knows, you might end up actually learning something, no matter how old you are.

burning dog · June 29th, 2005, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codewarrior

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=18112

Sorry if I have to disagree, but that sounds like a real jerk move to me. Being onstage I've had to do all kinds of things with all kinds of people, and part of being a musician is that if you have something like this (especially considering that it was a tribute to somebody for their birthday) you just suck it up and do it.

Oh and, yawuh, it didn't say Elvis just 'showed up' and demanded to sing. He was *scheduled* to sing, and people knew about it and were there to see him perform for Lee's celebration. It wasn't a freaking symphony orchestra performance at a concert hall for crying out loud, it was a jazz birthday bash at a club.

If it was Gary Peacock's gig, obviously he has total say over what goes down. But it wasn't. He was a guest in *someone else's* house, it was Lee Konitz' group AND his birthday, and what does do but disrespect Lee AND Elvis by refusing to play with the singer, and then disrespect the genre of rock to a magazine writer. That's just downright childish.

Music is supposed to be about having fun and relationships between people, not just notes on a page. Even people like Herbie and Chick have done all kinds of collaborations with people like Dave Matthews, Steve Vai, the Foo Fighters, Guru, etc. And Gary Peacock isn't even at that level of skill or reputation. So how does he have the nerve to be elitist.

I don't know, this kind of stuff makes me sick. I haven't liked every person I've ever played with, but when it's not your gig you just suck it up, smile, and go with it and try to have the best attitude you can. You don't just refuse to play because of your personal opinions about their music, or your 'musical standards'. It's not your freaking gig to begin with. And who knows, you might end up actually learning something, no matter how old you are.

Yes Peacock may have been rude, and a jerk, but Dworkin in his article makes assertions that Peacock didn't, I know few people that think music is better because it is more "sophisticated" or more difficult to play. The writer has used Peacocks behaviour to push a contrary agenda of his own. If Elvis Costello had been a typical rockstar Peacock's attitude would have been understandable even if his actions would still have been rude.

Renato · June 29th, 2005, 11:06 AM

Dworak says that nobody heard what they said to each other. Dworak ought to shut up - or get it straight from the horse's mouth. Maybe Peacock has had a bad experience with Costello in the past.

It is also possible that Costello came up to him and started harassing him, laying some jive attitude on him.

Or maybe Gary doesn't like Costello's watered-down-boring-ass-clichéd-lounge-singer-wishes-he-was-a-jazz-singer-crap. Neither do I.

If Gary thinks Costello's music sucks and Costello is a Rockstar - that is his business....and all the pseudo jazz fans who are trying to reconcile their new found jazz tastes with their real musical tastes should grow up. The two don't have to be mixed together to make them valid - IE Rockstar Costello and Jazzman Peacock don't have to play together to prove that listening to Albert Ayler, and Keith Jarrett(employers of Peacock's bassplaying) is just as valid as Costello's music. DWorak isreally just trying to justify listening to something he himself apparently believes to be inferior to what he really digs: Costello. (I am not saying it' is inferior - I grew up with heavy metal)

example:
"Well, I dig Elvis Costello.....but my main binge is Jazz. But I just went to this hip gig where Costello played with the cats. See....he IS one of the cats(and so am I)"

Renato · June 29th, 2005, 11:20 AM

Burning dog said what I tried to say better.

Tritone Sub · June 29th, 2005, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codewarrior

Music is supposed to be about having fun and relationships between people, not just notes on a page. Even people like Herbie and Chick have done all kinds of collaborations with people like Dave Matthews, Steve Vai, the Foo Fighters, Guru, etc. And Gary Peacock isn't even at that level of skill or reputation. So how does he have the nerve to be elitist.

Yes, he's not at the same level of reputation as Herbie and Chick. But, even with my limited understanding of piano and bass technique, I think he is at the same skill level. In fact, Peacock's choice of instrument may account for his being less popular than Hancock and Corea.

Otherwise you make some good points. I'm not going to take sides because I don't fully understand the situation. What did Peacock really say to Costello in their exchange? That's what we don't know...

That being said, Costello didn't have to storm off like that and refuse to perform. Seems like both Gary and Elvis were kind of childish that night. Maybe this isn't a case of musical elitism, maybe it was just a clash of egos?

Come to think of it, there's an Elvis song that that would have been perfect for that night: "Tears at the Birthday Party."

codewarrior · June 29th, 2005, 01:45 PM

Well it doesn't seem to me that not singing was childish. I mean basically, you're scheduled to sing with a band, and you bring charts, you rehearse it with the rest of the guys for 20 minutes, and then all of a sudden the bass player refuses to play the music. What the heck is that? What are you supposed to do, just sing it with piano and drums and no bass? Or maybe you can ask Dave Holland to come up and play it, since he's sitting in the audience ready to sub. Right! He left because that's completely silly, and he was well in his right to do so.

Obviously we don't know what Gary was thinking. Or what he said. But, what we have to go on are his actions: What he did, and what he said to JazzTimes. If he really did have a valid reason, say his fingers were hurting or he got a call on his cell phone that his dog died, I *highly* doubt he would have given such a horrible excuse in JazzTimes. And in this case, his actions were to kill the vibe of the group, instead of supporting and being a part of it. And that, especially at somebody's birthday celebration, seems completely ridiculous to me.

burning dog · June 29th, 2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codewarrior

Obviously we don't know what Gary was thinking. Or what he said. But, what we have to go on are his actions: What he did, and what he said to Jazz Times. .

What he did, and said to Jazz Times may have been dumb, but to devine from either that he has a heavy duty elitist outlook and that this is common among jazz musicians is poor journalism.

codewarrior · June 29th, 2005, 01:57 PM

The statement "I don't play backup to no rock star" is elitist. It just is. Someone mentioned the horse's mouth. If that's all we have to go on, that's what he said.

If you or I made the same or similar statements, we couldn't expect anyone to not think we were jerks. They would.

I didn't make any statements saying it was common. Even in the article the guy says it's not really the attitude of the jazz community. So I'm not sure where you are dragging that from.

burning dog · June 29th, 2005, 02:07 PM

It may be ignorant, childish, prejudiced and worth reporting but the tone of the article still sucks.

There is a entire paragraph where the journo talks about people looking down on music because it is easier to play etc. There is no reason to think that this is why Peacock acted or said as he did, possibly he doesn't like the extra- musical hype that accompanies rock/pop music. Who knows? (This may be an ignorant and childish attitude as well). He may have been in a foul mood that night and later tried to justify it by slagging off rock stars? Did anyone ask him? I doubt it, but who knows? It's hardy a Crouchian diatribe is it? More of a throaway insult. The writer attached the paragraph about simple music being frowned upon to an item about the Peacock incident, it must have been to infer that this was Peacocks motive, or is reasonably common, otherwise why attach it to this article?

Beboptrumpeter · June 29th, 2005, 02:16 PM

That can be taken more than one way. It's not really elitist if he doesn't like rock music. He could have a strong dislike for the music, such as I do. It did help in taking jazz out of the spotlight in the 60s-70s. Maybe he doesn't want to support a music that helped take down the popularity of jazz?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. He could very well think of himself above rock music (which he is anyways

).

I agree that he should have not been so disrespectful at a birthday party. However, he does have the right to not play if he wants to. If he loses money for that, that's his problem.

I also agree with the statements about Peacock being less popular because of his choice of instrument. There are tons more famous pianists than there are bassists.

Being a musician, I have played with people I didn't want to play with, and have done things I didn't want to do. However, Peacock is to the point where he can pick and choose, without really losing much. It might not seem very respectful, but I'm sure he gains some sort of self-respect for not having to lower his musical standards.

June 29th, 2005, 08:30 AM	#1
yawuh Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 550	No Trouble With Gary (Peacock) John Dworkin's article on the apparent elitism of Gary Peacock (vis a vis the Elvis Costello story) closes with a quote from Keith Jarrett, made in reference to Wynton Marsalis. Names are substituted in order to call out Peacock on his faux pas. But I wonder: would Jarrett himself have backed Costello on short notice? Maybe 25 years ago... I say 'apparent' elitism because a) I don't think an artist having musical standards is a bad thing, and b) I think Peacock is old enough to call his own shots. And we don't know Peacock's personal opinion of Costello to begin with, do we? Maybe Gary disliked "Oliver's Army" and "Pump it Up", etc., or maybe he'd never heard Elvis' music and didn't care. No one's really done much digging into Peacock's side of the story; instead, it becomes the old egalitarian "argument" - everything's great and why say something's better than the other? Dworkin again: "He chose his vision of being an artist over being a compassionate human being. This is always the wrong choice." Oh dear. If it weren't for Peacock's "vision" as an "artist", we wouldn't give a damn who he was in the first place, and he could be compassionate in a grocery store for all anyone cared. Was Elvis compassionate in showing up and assuming everyone would be on their knees begging to play with him? Maybe Gary should have just played the songs and been done with it. But I don't think his refusal was totally out of line, and since this story is pretty old at this point, I wouldn't expect any apology from him either. Like EC would even care. (And next time the symphony's performing, I'll show up with my electric guitar loop soundscapes and ask to sit in. Those bastards better not judge me...)

June 29th, 2005, 11:06 AM	#8
Renato Registered User Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4	you assume......and you know what that does. Dworak says that nobody heard what they said to each other. Dworak ought to shut up - or get it straight from the horse's mouth. Maybe Peacock has had a bad experience with Costello in the past. It is also possible that Costello came up to him and started harassing him, laying some jive attitude on him. Or maybe Gary doesn't like Costello's watered-down-boring-ass-clichéd-lounge-singer-wishes-he-was-a-jazz-singer-crap. Neither do I. If Gary thinks Costello's music sucks and Costello is a Rockstar - that is his business....and all the pseudo jazz fans who are trying to reconcile their new found jazz tastes with their real musical tastes should grow up. The two don't have to be mixed together to make them valid - IE Rockstar Costello and Jazzman Peacock don't have to play together to prove that listening to Albert Ayler, and Keith Jarrett(employers of Peacock's bassplaying) is just as valid as Costello's music. DWorak isreally just trying to justify listening to something he himself apparently believes to be inferior to what he really digs: Costello. (I am not saying it' is inferior - I grew up with heavy metal) example: "Well, I dig Elvis Costello.....but my main binge is Jazz. But I just went to this hip gig where Costello played with the cats. See....he IS one of the cats(and so am I)"

June 29th, 2005, 11:20 AM	#9
Renato Registered User Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4	more Burning dog said what I tried to say better.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

June 29th, 2005, 09:09 AM	#3
Tritone Sub Have a Little Faith Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Merry Land Posts: 1,150	Pardon my ignorance but I don't understand the context. Do you have a link to the article you reference? I love both Gary Peacock and Elvis Costello and would like to understand what all the fuss is about. Thanks.

June 29th, 2005, 09:20 AM	#5
yawuh Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 550	Tritone Sub - I found the article in the AAJ "Articles" section, although the story itself has been around for a while, in various places. Forget where I first heard of it.

June 29th, 2005, 10:14 AM	#6
codewarrior Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 571	http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=18112 Sorry if I have to disagree, but that sounds like a real jerk move to me. Being onstage I've had to do all kinds of things with all kinds of people, and part of being a musician is that if you have something like this (especially considering that it was a tribute to somebody for their birthday) you just suck it up and do it. Oh and, yawuh, it didn't say Elvis just 'showed up' and demanded to sing. He was scheduled to sing, and people knew about it and were there to see him perform for Lee's celebration. It wasn't a freaking symphony orchestra performance at a concert hall for crying out loud, it was a jazz birthday bash at a club. If it was Gary Peacock's gig, obviously he has total say over what goes down. But it wasn't. He was a guest in someone else's house, it was Lee Konitz' group AND his birthday, and what does do but disrespect Lee AND Elvis by refusing to play with the singer, and then disrespect the genre of rock to a magazine writer. That's just downright childish. Music is supposed to be about having fun and relationships between people, not just notes on a page. Even people like Herbie and Chick have done all kinds of collaborations with people like Dave Matthews, Steve Vai, the Foo Fighters, Guru, etc. And Gary Peacock isn't even at that level of skill or reputation. So how does he have the nerve to be elitist. I don't know, this kind of stuff makes me sick. I haven't liked every person I've ever played with, but when it's not your gig you just suck it up, smile, and go with it and try to have the best attitude you can. You don't just refuse to play because of your personal opinions about their music, or your 'musical standards'. It's not your freaking gig to begin with. And who knows, you might end up actually learning something, no matter how old you are.

June 29th, 2005, 01:45 PM	#11
codewarrior Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 571	Well it doesn't seem to me that not singing was childish. I mean basically, you're scheduled to sing with a band, and you bring charts, you rehearse it with the rest of the guys for 20 minutes, and then all of a sudden the bass player refuses to play the music. What the heck is that? What are you supposed to do, just sing it with piano and drums and no bass? Or maybe you can ask Dave Holland to come up and play it, since he's sitting in the audience ready to sub. Right! He left because that's completely silly, and he was well in his right to do so. Obviously we don't know what Gary was thinking. Or what he said. But, what we have to go on are his actions: What he did, and what he said to JazzTimes. If he really did have a valid reason, say his fingers were hurting or he got a call on his cell phone that his dog died, I highly doubt he would have given such a horrible excuse in JazzTimes. And in this case, his actions were to kill the vibe of the group, instead of supporting and being a part of it. And that, especially at somebody's birthday celebration, seems completely ridiculous to me.

June 29th, 2005, 01:57 PM	#13
codewarrior Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 571	The statement "I don't play backup to no rock star" is elitist. It just is. Someone mentioned the horse's mouth. If that's all we have to go on, that's what he said. If you or I made the same or similar statements, we couldn't expect anyone to not think we were jerks. They would. I didn't make any statements saying it was common. Even in the article the guy says it's not really the attitude of the jazz community. So I'm not sure where you are dragging that from.

June 29th, 2005, 02:07 PM	#14
burning dog Registered User Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Dorset (via London) England Posts: 2,195	It may be ignorant, childish, prejudiced and worth reporting but the tone of the article still sucks. There is a entire paragraph where the journo talks about people looking down on music because it is easier to play etc. There is no reason to think that this is why Peacock acted or said as he did, possibly he doesn't like the extra- musical hype that accompanies rock/pop music. Who knows? (This may be an ignorant and childish attitude as well). He may have been in a foul mood that night and later tried to justify it by slagging off rock stars? Did anyone ask him? I doubt it, but who knows? It's hardy a Crouchian diatribe is it? More of a throaway insult. The writer attached the paragraph about simple music being frowned upon to an item about the Peacock incident, it must have been to infer that this was Peacocks motive, or is reasonably common, otherwise why attach it to this article?

June 29th, 2005, 02:16 PM	#15
Beboptrumpeter Registered User Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 34	That can be taken more than one way. It's not really elitist if he doesn't like rock music. He could have a strong dislike for the music, such as I do. It did help in taking jazz out of the spotlight in the 60s-70s. Maybe he doesn't want to support a music that helped take down the popularity of jazz? I'm just playing devil's advocate here. He could very well think of himself above rock music (which he is anyways ). I agree that he should have not been so disrespectful at a birthday party. However, he does have the right to not play if he wants to. If he loses money for that, that's his problem. I also agree with the statements about Peacock being less popular because of his choice of instrument. There are tons more famous pianists than there are bassists. Being a musician, I have played with people I didn't want to play with, and have done things I didn't want to do. However, Peacock is to the point where he can pick and choose, without really losing much. It might not seem very respectful, but I'm sure he gains some sort of self-respect for not having to lower his musical standards.