After searching the web and not finding an official site or email address, I thought I'd post and see if anyone knows of a contact address. I'm probably too lazy to send something to a snail-mail address, so I think I'm really looking for an email address.

Try ECM Records. They are his record label and post his touring info.

I doubt you'll get to e-mail him directly though. Good luck.

Thanks. I found a general email address for ecm records and will try that: ecmrecords@ecmrecords.com

hey Charles, why don't you ask him how much he usually charges to come to your house and give you a lesson?

Dave Frank

Hehe . . I actually sent him some pointers!

Just curious, what's your reason for contacting him?

Who knows, maybe Keith J is cruising the music forums anonymously, under an alias so he won't get spammed or a ton of email from his fans. In fact, he may be lurking here already, at this moment, seeing what others are saying about him.

Another way to contact famous musicians is through their local musician's union directory. Sometimes the management who represents the artist has an email address that will forward messages to them in the book.

katt

I attended his concert this year in San Francisco (I wrote up my immediate impressions in a post here on the forums back then). Since then, I've listened to more of his work and they've underlined for me what of course everybody knows - that he is rarely not interrupted by coughing, and so he addresses this issue once or even multiple times in each concert.

I worked with an art professor in college who did research in what a 'public spectacle' (not meant pejoratively) is, and I also wrote on one or two topics in the philosophy of art. This background got me to thinking about why Jarrett is so unsuccessful getting his audiences to quiet down. (In San Francisco, he addressed it so many times that many people left.)

In addition to this, I've noticed that Jarrett says sometimes that if he himself can keep from coughing, so should the audience.

All these things sparked my suggestion to him, which is that his projects are shared artworks and that the reason the audience is not reciprocating is because they haven't been invited to join him. San Francisco was confrontational - members of the audience were calling Jarrett nasty names (very loudly and clearly), believe it or not.

Jarrett has said in some concerts that he draws from the audience, and this is familiar to any performer. And Jarrett is right that when you are creating, you tend to suppress coughs. The roadblock has perhaps been that the audience has not had a stake in the artwork.

Is this all just to say that Jarrett should be nicer when he asks people to be quiet? Maybe. It seems to me his usual method is to make his first request humorously, and then unfortunately to show annoyance to the crowd.

My art professor gave me a tour of the Colosseum in Rome, which was of special interest to him since the audience had so much power there. This - the power of the audience - was one of the things which his research associated with public spectacle. Here, the emperor had to curry the favor of the masses just as much as the gladiators did (and the Colosseum was a vehicle for both). One thing I took away from it was an unshakable respect for the audience.

You must have gone to this concert:

News

What was KJ's reaction to the audience verbally attacking him? He is known for his outbursts at times, but in that review it says he gave 4 encores.

Some of the comments after the article were from people attending the show. Sounds like both parties were at fault.

Maybe it depends on his mood on the night. One of you recently posted a you-tube link of Danny Boy from Tokyo 2002, and at the end of the song, Keith actually bowed reverently to his audience to thank them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbesyPby7P8

Or maybe it depends on where the audience is. Last time I saw Jarrett in London a year ago there was not a whisper from the crowd (although the way he milked the endless applause for encores drove me a bit nuts). He did not say a single word to the audience.

Jarrett actually mentioned this in the concert - he didn't mention London, but rather Japan. (Bizarre, the idea of not only showing annoyance, but explicitly criticizing the audience.)

Still, I don't know whether to agree with him or to be proud of my fellow Americans!

He bowed also in San Francisco - very deep, long bows. He also said 'thanks' after at least one of the longer applause times.

Yes - that's the one! A great write-up, I think.

I wish I had a recording. I find I only appreciate his music fully after listening a few times.

His reaction to the verbal attacks was surprising. I expected an outburst, but he didn't reply at all. At one point he even said that he'd tried to learn since Umbria . . . (if so, it didn't bring him or us much benefit obviously).

That was a good write-up indeed. I was especially intrigued by this passage from the review:

The oddest and perhaps most tragic thing is that Jarrett's tantrum came after a piece that has to rank as one of the most heartbreaking beautiful performances I've ever heard coaxed out of piano. Maintaining a rolling, expansive ostinato, Jarrett carefully sketched a fragile melody that seem to encompass all the heartbreak and joy of being alive, and especially the moments you can't quite tell the two apart.

Does anybody out there know if this particular portion of the concert made it onto YouTube or is otherwise available for listening? This description makes it sound sublime.

I shouldn't think there is any chance of that, you would have to be pretty brave to try to video a Jarrett gig. Luckily he has recorded dozens of solo albums you can listen to, all of them sublime (imo)

I could listen to the Koln Concert forever.

Just looking at the comments on that article, I agree somewhat with this one:

"What a disappointment! I stayed through the last encore, hoping that Keith would salvage the concert, but it did not work for me. It was a shallow and bitter performance, cut short and chopped up into little pieces. Keith should not do concerts in the US - stick to Japan where they don't cough."

I felt the concert never got off the ground. It was a collection of pieces, few of which were allowed to take off.

Finally, I'll add that if Keith Jarrett knows that his art will not work when people are coughing, why on earth did he not request that cough drops be available at all entrances? That's inexcusable to the point of unprofessional.

the are huge vats of cough drops outside every entrance when he plays Carnegie Hall - ricolas.

DF

Here's a site with a lot of Keith Jarrett live concerts, all bootlegs. I'm sure they are all unauthorized, but I'm just the messenger:

http://keithjarrettlive.blogspot.com/

If there are hundreds or thousands of people at a concert it's unrealistic to expect that no one will cough even if everyone tries very hard not to. I don't think I've ever heard a concert at Carnegie Hall during the winter when there was no coughing.

Keith Jarrett says...



Shut up. I'm playing.

Actually, he has a pretty well outfitted recording studio at home to play in quiet any time he wants.

And to think, I would've saved 25 bucks in gas, and had a free Friday night, too!

Thankfully I have handy a box of rotten tomatoes!

Those ARE unauthorized. And by passing on the link here you are only facilitating theft.

Musicians rely on their music to live, and feed their families etc. and have a right not to have their music passed around for free at the whim of others. It's entirely unfair that some asshole (pardon my french) with a Zoom recorder and no respect for the rules of the game should decide which music by an artist gets distributed to the public.

Yes they are. The reality is that bootlegs and illegal distributing of music is VERY prevalent now. Doesn't make it right, but it's there. Some stat says over 80% of people have downloaded free music at least once.

I know of 10 or more sites that have 1000's of jazz albums for downloading.

And what about the many free streaming music sites like Rhapsody.com, or lastfm.com.

Some musicians permit their fans to record live shows, like the Grateful Dead. They still sold tons of albums. Most don't, but there's always going to be people who break the rules.

The digital era has changed the game completely. Just be glad you weren't living 100 years ago or back when NO musician ever got rich. Mozart died penniless as I recall.

I think most in the music industry are moving beyond that simplified view. A lot of consumers either can't afford to buy all those records, or just won't buy them, and without 'bootlegs' they would just have a much smaller music collection, and appreciation. Having recordings available for free allows much wider appreciation of the material, and helps support a new generation of concertgoers.

I probably wouldn't have gone to Jarrett's concert in the first place if it weren't for free recordings on youtube which allowed me to become more familiar with his stuff. I had only heard the Koeln Concert once ages ago.

The same goes for classical recordings. You can set up playlists on youtube of just about any major classical pianist. The collection of CDs you would have to have for this would cost many thousands of dollars - out of reach for many.

Finally, it's not just their families they're feeding! Remember that recording technology took plain old entertainers and made them wealthy superstars. They buy big houses and luxury cars. But, it's OK to remember that they're still entertainers. If the revenue models begin to favor live entertainment over recordings, as used to be the case, I don't think it's entirely bad.

Realistically, some micro-payment system will be the best way to go. Of course there are the monthly flat-rate services. Personally I would prefer a service where I can listen to a song on a per-listen basis - a few cents per Keith Jarrett piece. Some months I do very little listening, others, more.

This is very cool but not available in the US yet, but some of you out there can get it... Anyone out there want to get me a code?

http://www.spotify.com/int/new-user/


Also, interesting book (now a few years old) relevant to this discussion, I'm sure some of you know it....

http://www.futureofmusicbook.com/


And in response to this direct discussion, it is currently "illegal" but I believe the legality of bootlegging etc is old and has not caught up yet with reality. Plus, the guy's not making a profit on albums that are official releases. These are just bootlegged recordings that you can't buy anyway. It's not like he posted Kohln Concert for free download.

What it boils down to for me is this: I am a professional musician. I make recordings. I spend LOTS of time and money(my own and others') to make these recordings. For people to then take this music and distribute it for free makes it an unprofitable endeavor for the artist. Yes, there are artists living in mansions but the vast majority are middle class citizens trying to make a living doing what they love.
My records are on itunes and other digital download sites. You can go there and sample a song and if you like it you can buy it (usually for 99 cents). But then why would I do that if i can get it for free somewhere else like limewire for instance?
The issue becomes a matter of individual choice based on personal education and personal morals.
Would you accept a Rolex from someone as a gift is you knew it was stolen? Would you buy a new MacBook Pro for $500 instead of $2000 because it was 'hot'?
I know I wouldn't. But I also know many people would.
It seems ironic that many of the greatest fans of an artist's music are also the most eager thieves of that artist's music.
I believe in paying for what I feel is valuable to me. Many people don't think of it in that way. And even worse is that many people just don't think about it at all. They just mindlessly jump on the bandwagon with an 'oh well, everyone does it' mentality.

AJF-

I for one would love to hear some of your stuff, any chance you could provide a link to these samples ?

Thanks.