Why you should be as unprofessional as Keith Jarrett....

by Minim @ 2011-01-24
Much has been written recently about Keith Jarrett’s propensity for losing his temper with audiences following an incident during a solo concert at Carnegie Hall. It was Patrick Jarenwattananon at A Blog Supreme and Anthony Dean-Harris who first got my grey cells twitching on this subject.

Now I wasn’t at the concert in question so I can’t comment on this particular outburst and but Keith Jarrett’s unwillingness to tolerate any noise from coughing and photograph taking is legendary. What I have found very interesting is that many in the blogosphere share Anthony’s view that Mr. Jarrett’s behaviour is unprofessional and that this is automatically a bad thing.

The arguments about Keith Jarrett’s attitude to noise made by audiences and the way he reacts to it will go and on and on and it’s not really what I want to get into in this post. My instinct says that Jarrett is well known for this kind of behaviour and if it’s not something that you’re prepared to put up with then simply don’t pay to go and see him – ‘You pays your money and you takes your choice’, as the old saying goes.

What I do want to talk about though, is the idea of ‘professionalism’ and how it impacts the way musicians approach their music making. I found it particularly noteworthy that many of Jarrett’s detractors were also musicians, and it was their criticism of Keith as ‘unprofessional’ that I found fascinating. In a nutshell, what the criticism says is that a musician or artist performing for an audience, particularly if that audience has paid, is automatically beholden to that audience. In other words, they’ve paid, so you owe it to them to conform to their expectations.

What’s interesting is how this distorts the relationship between the musician and his music. Those who are advocating the kind of professionalism that would involve ignoring distractions and interruptions from the audience seem to be taking the view that because the audience has paid to attend the performance, you have an obligation to attempt to make the best of whatever situation you are performing in.

If noise from the audience is distracting you, then you should simply try and ignore it and get on with it as best you can.
To the ‘professional’ in this situation, the priority of the performance is not to create art, it is to please the audience – even if its behaviour is preventing your from creating the best music your are capable of.

It would be interesting to note at what point those who call Jarrett unprofessional would agree that he would be justified in stopping a performance. A bit of coughing and a few camera clicks seem to be all it takes for him to down tools at the moment, and many comments seem to think that is insufficient provocation for stopping playing.

But what if a mobile phone had gone off – would they then think his behaviour was justified. No? How about 3 or 4 phones going off, one after the other? How about if those 3 or 4 phones were answered and their owners started conducting conversations whilst the trio were playing? How about then?


I think that if several mobile phones were going off, or people were conducting actual phone conversations in the concert hall, nobody would be calling Keith unprofessional for stopping playing. As a result, it’s hard not to draw the conclusion that stopping playing due to distractions is universally acceptable – it’s just that those who criticised Keith Jarrett’s behaviour felt that the distractions couldn’t be considered severe enough to warrant that cause of action.

When world-famous musicians play venues like Carnegie Hall, if two members of the audience start having a very loud conversation, most people would not be surprised if the performance was stopped and the people chastised. However, if the same people were having the same conversation in front of artists playing in a club, it is less likely to happen. If those same people were having the same conversation in front of musicians at a function then most people would be amazed if the performance were stopped and think they were acting totally inappropriately.

And yet, theoretically, it could be the same people playing the same music. Granted, Keith Jarrett probably doesn’t play too many weddings these days but there are very talented jazz performers who often find themselves regularly playing in both formal concert situations and in more ‘background music’ situations due to the swings and roundabouts of life as a working musician.

What I find significant about this debate in a wider sense is that it reminds us it is almost never the performer who sets the terms on which his music is to be performed. Instead, it is the venue or audience who gets to decide under what circumstances music will be created and consumed. What’s even more significant is that we all seem to buy into this idea and, as musicians and artists, accept it as the natural way of the world.

We totally buy into the idea that is appropriate for other people to decide the context in which our music is played and received. Not only do we buy into it, but it is so deeply ingrained that when somebody challenges this idea, as Keith Jarrett regularly does, we feel justified in criticising him for it.

The idea of being ‘professional’ essentially means that we subjugate our artistry to people who have the money to book us. It means that if somebody is paying you to play, then you are obligated to put up with a certain amount of crap because that payment entitles the person paying to control your art.

If musicians were always treated really well everywhere they went, if every time they played there was a respectful and completely silent audience, the very notion of professionalism would most likely not even exist. When we talk about professionalism in this context, what we are essentially talking about is the ability of musicians to put up with crap and keep playing.

Furthermore, whenever we demonstrate professionalism and carry on regardless, we do so because our immediate need for the money being paid overcomes our desire to perform in circumstances conducive to making art. What jazz musician hasn’t been on a gig were he felt like packing up and going home, but bit his lip because he needed the money? We’ve all been there; we’ve all been treated like dirt and put up with it because there are bills that need to be paid. Even if we aren’t desperate for that particular fee from that particular gig, we’re terrified of getting a bad reputation and losing future work.

Complete on: http://playjazz.blog.co.uk/2011/01/24/why-you-should-be-as-unprofessional-as-keith-jarrett-10425332/