This article seems to miss the entire point of the movie...? Fletcher is not supposed to be an arbiter of how music is played, he's not even a neighbour to the idea of music as joy and...
This article seems to miss the entire point of the movie...? Fletcher is not supposed to be an arbiter of how music is played, he's not even a neighbour to the idea of music as joy and entertainment. Fletcher's obsession is with three things: control, winning, and a sick and twisted idea of development. There is no room for studying theory in Fletcher's world, no room for collaboration with other students. There is only brutal, exacting perfection in Fletcher's ensemble and performances.
Thus it seems to me that the article is actually aligned with the themes in the movie: the actual nature of jazz, of musical education, of "originality" as the author puts it has been sucked out of Fletcher's musical world. His obsessive and abusive nature has guaranteed that outcome. Nor do I agree with the author's assessment that Andrew demonstrates "chutzpah" in the movie. As a matter of fact, my perspective is the opposite: Andrew has failed himself by falling under Fletcher's spell, in which there is no room for life, for relationships (c.f. Andrew's treatment of his girlfriend), and honestly, no room for true music. The result that Andrew is "ready[]... for a job on television" is, ironically, actually quite accurate. By the conclusion of the movie his father is rightly horrified at the risk Andrew now faces: extreme notoriety and the likelihood of an early death under such a stressful and dangerous regime. Andrew will be a caricature of a jazz artist.
In summary, while the treatment of historical facts and worship of less-than-ideal idols in the jazz realm can be considered marks against the movie, the overarching message of a disconnect between the world of Fletcher and the actual world of jazz is a deliberate point the movie is making.
I appreciate this perspective, but I think the issue is that jazz is removed enough from the purview of modern culture that the layperson may well assume that this is how a typical jazz program is...
I appreciate this perspective, but I think the issue is that jazz is removed enough from the purview of modern culture that the layperson may well assume that this is how a typical jazz program is really run. Most folks don’t have the context to be able to view it in the lens that you or I would.
I don’t disagree with the points you’re bringing up - I wonder if that message might have gotten across better if there had been a foil to Fletcher’s ensemble to ground the viewers as to what a “real life” healthy ensemble looks like.
Just for context, as someone who knows next to nothing about jazz or its subculture, when I watched the movie, my first instinct was "this is dysfunctional af and probably not representative." I...
Just for context, as someone who knows next to nothing about jazz or its subculture, when I watched the movie, my first instinct was "this is dysfunctional af and probably not representative." I get it though. I have the same feeling when I see pop culture/mainstream media depictions of something niche that I have a personal connection to and I can't relate to it.
Appreciate the callout, and yeah, hopefully others did the same as you. As someone whose job it was to get kids excited about jazz, I just felt very defeated after the movie came out. I got...
Appreciate the callout, and yeah, hopefully others did the same as you. As someone whose job it was to get kids excited about jazz, I just felt very defeated after the movie came out. I got excited for months leading up to it knowing that jazz band was going to be in the spotlight for once (I taught at a very show-choir-centric high school), and then come to realize it’s almost like a psychological horror movie based around a jazz band. Not a fun realization. Also got tired very quickly of students (and their parents) asking me how many chairs I had thrown in rehearsal that week.
Per your last thought, I’ve taken to calling it the “Stuff You Should Know Experience.” I enjoyed listening to that podcast for several years before they did an episode on music (or something music-adjacent) and they started spouting off a bunch of stuff that sounded accurate coming off the tongue, but none of it was quite right. And then I took a step back and thought, “well, damn, if that’s how I felt after the one episode on a topic with which I’m more familiar, how often is this happening with every other episode?” I mentioned this in another thread on this post, but I can’t imagine how doctors must feel having to watch inaccurate depictions of their jobs all over the place.
Per your last thought, I’ve taken to calling it the “Stuff You Should Know Experience."
Reminds me of this neologism by Michael Crichton:
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
I have not encountered this specifically, but I do have a friend who thought that the point of Whiplash was that to be brilliant at something, you have to be rally hard at yourself and Fletcher...
the layperson may well assume that this is how a typical jazz program is really run.
I have not encountered this specifically, but I do have a friend who thought that the point of Whiplash was that to be brilliant at something, you have to be rally hard at yourself and Fletcher brought out the best in him. I think this is maybe a bit more likely - people likely intuitively assume that a normal music experience is not like this, but that if you want to be at the top, this is the way to go.
Which, to be fair, may be just as bad for shaping their expectations.
I think that personal biases may be the key to recognizing the pathology. This friend of mine is a doctor with an obviously unhealthy relationship to herself who also sees hard work and suppressing one's needs as the way to be good in her own life, so in a way it's obvious that she interprets the movie like this.
And honestly, I think that if the authors decided to more obviously tell us that what we're seeing is wrong, it would have made for a worse movie. I do wish they were more realistic about actually playing jazz.
There’s certainly a level of intensity that needs to be reached in order to excel to a level like we see in the movie, but to believe, or be led to believe, that the path we see in Whiplash is the...
There’s certainly a level of intensity that needs to be reached in order to excel to a level like we see in the movie, but to believe, or be led to believe, that the path we see in Whiplash is the only way to do it, or that it’s the healthy / correct way, is definitely a fraught takeaway from the film.
I have friends and peers who are currently “making it” in the jazz scene as composers, educators, and musicians. Some cut their teeth in New York, some worked their way up in and around the Midwest, and some did so outside of the US entirely. But one thing I can say with certainty that the ones who really rose to the top were indeed persistent, but were also some of the friendliest and most well-balanced. I know plenty of intense musicians (read: assholes) who also found success in the industry, but they are fewer and far between, and they almost always burn themselves out or burn enough bridges that folks don’t want them around.
I guess if I had to sum it up in sentence:
I think the intent of the movie is to show that it’s wrong (or at least not totally right or healthy), but I wish they had shown just how wrong by way of a foil in another successful musician or ensemble.
If you use movies as the basis for creating a world view, your world view is going to be heavily distorted. I don't know, maybe that explains a lot about why people are so fearful of strangers...
If you use movies as the basis for creating a world view, your world view is going to be heavily distorted.
I don't know, maybe that explains a lot about why people are so fearful of strangers these days.
When I moved to America, I was surprised that America was just like the movies/ tv shows.
All those absurdist jokes... weren't absurdist. That was the way it was.
Not 100% But I naturally assumed most media was BS.
Agreed! Though I fear this is all too prevalent these days. And additionally, it feels like the less you know or understand about something, the more likely you are to base your understanding of...
Agreed! Though I fear this is all too prevalent these days. And additionally, it feels like the less you know or understand about something, the more likely you are to base your understanding of it on its portrayal in media.
Maybe this is a sort of way to feed our own confirmation biases? i.e. somebody thinks jazz is an overly intellectual and out-of-touch art form, they see a movie like Whiplash, and they go “yup, I figured it was like that.” Not saying that’s right to do, of course, just wouldn’t be surprised if that was what lured people into that line of thinking.
Edit: I misread @nic’s comment at first and adjusted a few sentences
Nah it made good enough sense; just a hasty first read on my part. And I’m with you there too, but I do fear it’s not the default for many, especially when the all-too-alluring biases we hold...
Nah it made good enough sense; just a hasty first read on my part. And I’m with you there too, but I do fear it’s not the default for many, especially when the all-too-alluring biases we hold would be neatly confirmed by said media.
I agree on the dynamics between the two characters, but I still don't see where the movie is directing any of this as commentary specifically towards jazz. Even with what you're saying about...
I agree on the dynamics between the two characters, but I still don't see where the movie is directing any of this as commentary specifically towards jazz. Even with what you're saying about originality, Andrew spontaneously starts the song of his own accord at the end, and IMO that's portrayed as a minor "victory" Andrew takes by going off Fletcher's pristine program. That's mostly about control, and does ultimately ends up where you're describing; everything in it is about personal dynamics.
If it does have a message that's related to jazz - more broadly, music - to me it doesn't seem to be on the merits of Whiplash or within its text. What anchors a contrast of "the actual nature of jazz", or any music at all, to Andrew's experience in the movie? There's nothing outside of the scope of the two characters; there's no other teacher at the university, no interaction with another student, no other courses, no one else at a jazz set, no other bands at the competitions, no gigs, and no other opportunities that provide literally any perspective that this isn't the way things are in an academic environment or in the music scene. Considering the actual nature of jazz, why does Fletcher have a job in the first place if the academic scene isn't supposed to be inherently like Chazelle portrays it?
I see nothing in its thesis that can't be applied to someone in any other occupation, art, sport, etc. That's all fine as set-dressing, but that doesn't seem to have any message specific to music; if it's supposed to, it seems either off-base or ends up preying on a lack of knowledge from the audience.
I don't think whiplash is supposed to be an accurate jazz movie. I think jazz is just used as the vehicle about a story of determination, abuse, and if things like success are worth it and at what...
I don't think whiplash is supposed to be an accurate jazz movie. I think jazz is just used as the vehicle about a story of determination, abuse, and if things like success are worth it and at what cost. So with that in mind, it's sorta like pointing out that Rocky isn't an accurate boxing movie.
I thought so too. Besides what movie actually nails the reality of whatever profession it chooses to depict as part of the story? I remember one of my linguistics friends being pissed about...
I thought so too.
Besides what movie actually nails the reality of whatever profession it chooses to depict as part of the story?
I remember one of my linguistics friends being pissed about Arrival getting stuff wrong lol. It's super rare to get things right and not to cut corners as you're aiming for the general audience and not a niche of professionals.
Sure, but using it as a focal vehicle and then misrepresenting it is lazy writing. Or, if they do stretch the truth, it shouldn't be cutting corners - it should be carrying the spirit where...
Sure, but using it as a focal vehicle and then misrepresenting it is lazy writing. Or, if they do stretch the truth, it shouldn't be cutting corners - it should be carrying the spirit where technicality fails it. That can be hard, but that's the writer's, director's, actor's, and the rest of the set's job to keep suspension of disbelief. Not much reason to excuse it.
Bad technology is the thing that personally takes me out of movies trying to be serious, and I find it really actively detrimental. Skyfall took a notoriously technology-savvy character and turned him into a fucking idiot with one bad scene. I think it's a hallmark of a good script to be able to speak to laypeople over those things without alienating a knowing audience. Like, I love My Cousin Vinny; lawyers also seem to love it! With Whiplash, the love doesn't seem to be there from the crowd it's about, and it's articulated pretty well why.
Or, hell - I know Rocky might be a throwaway example, but I looked around because I was curious. It seems like boxers didn't have a beef with the original film's boxing? Muhammad Ali levied some criticism at Rocky 2 at the racial message it sent to the US, but before that Ali was with Stallone presenting an Oscar the year Rocky won. Mike Tyson was dancing around wanting to be in one of the movies, but he didn't want to lose. (Not sure why he did Punch-Out!!...) Chuck Wepner and Joe Fraizer voiced that they didn't receive credit for their part in its inspiration, (and Frazier's statue should've replaced the stupid Rocky statue,) but two boxers saying Rocky was too close to their lives seems to endorse that it carries the spirit of their career. Sure, no one can take hits like the character does - Sylvester Stallone couldn't, he asked for Carl Weathers to actually punch him and went to the hospital. By 4 the series goes full ridiculous. But the first movie's content seems pretty lock-step with the subject matter.
Adam Neely has a video coming to similar conclusions. He agrees with the ridiculousness of the competition (noting for example that "first and second" chairs sometimes aren't even by skill IIRC),...
Adam Neely has a video coming to similar conclusions. He agrees with the ridiculousness of the competition (noting for example that "first and second" chairs sometimes aren't even by skill IIRC), that Buddy Rich is a shitty idol, and that this really ought to be some other genre of movie. He also notes this is a really stale perception of jazz in academia; hip-hop has taken a huge role in jazz, and Fletcher's "Starbucks crap" jeer is pretty much aimed at his own playing in the bar.
La La Land has similar sorts of things going on, and I have a family member in the arts who, similarly, hates it! I love both of these as movies, but it does rub me the wrong way. I haven't seen First Man or Babylon and I wonder if they also have off-base or myopic views of the subject matter...
In high school our symphonic/concert bands would assign chairs based on skill, but our jazz band would assign the second chair to the person who could improvise the best. Not sure how prevalent...
In high school our symphonic/concert bands would assign chairs based on skill, but our jazz band would assign the second chair to the person who could improvise the best. Not sure how prevalent that approach is.
Jazz drummer here. I did not care for Whiplash AT ALL, but I'm not going to go into detail because I have no desire to get worked up all over again. But I was actually angry after my one and only...
Jazz drummer here. I did not care for Whiplash AT ALL, but I'm not going to go into detail because I have no desire to get worked up all over again. But I was actually angry after my one and only viewing.
Hello, fellow jazz drummer! I came here to post Iverson’s article as well; appreciate you doing so. I permit myself to believe that my feelings about Whiplash are likely how doctors feel about...
Hello, fellow jazz drummer! I came here to post Iverson’s article as well; appreciate you doing so.
I permit myself to believe that my feelings about Whiplash are likely how doctors feel about (insert any show about hospitals/doctors here), so I try not to let it get to me too much, but yeah, I was definitely yelling into the cosmos after my viewing too. Especially with jazz being so far removed from pop culture at this point, I feel like a movie like this can almost damage the reputation and scare off kids who would otherwise have wanted to get involved. I was teaching high school band (including jazz band) when the movie released, so I was pretty upset by that whole aspect of it.
Also on a technical level, I hate that it showed somebody practicing till their hands bled. If your hands bleed when you practice drumming, irrespective of the amount of practice you’re doing, you probably shouldn’t be doing this at the collegiate level because your technique is clearly garbage.
Also arbitrarily calling an uptempo piece “double time swing” like that means anything by itself.
Also the director “conducting” the drum solo at the end like that makes any sense.
Thank you! The problems with the movie are so obvious to every musician I know in real life, but in online settings I often feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I try to discuss the movie (which...
Thank you! The problems with the movie are so obvious to every musician I know in real life, but in online settings I often feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I try to discuss the movie (which is why I usually don't bother trying anymore.) It's nice to see someone else who gets it.
This is a pretty strong conclusion. I don’t think it’s correct to say. People who think Taco Bell is the best Mexican food are not necessarily racist. I think they are ignorant. But there are...
In light of the Whiplash phenomenon, I have no problem saying that if you think Buddy Rich is the greatest jazz drummer, you are racist.
This is a pretty strong conclusion. I don’t think it’s correct to say. People who think Taco Bell is the best Mexican food are not necessarily racist. I think they are ignorant. But there are non-race related reasons people would have these opinions.
I am white, but I grew up listening to jazz. I did not watch late night shows or listen to big band. So I had only a vague idea of buddy rich when I saw whiplash, while I grew up understanding Tony Williams was the greatest.
I think the writer here understands that this isn’t a movie about jazz. It’s a movie made mostly by white people staring mostly white people using jazz as setting. The essays emphasis on devotion playing is a concept I had not been aware of but it totally makes sense. I have a definitely heard people say a good jazz drummer is a drummer you never notice when you’re not supposed to. The reality is that kind of drummer would be a completely different movie. It would be like a movie about an offensive lineman not a quarterback. (Reference to The Blind Side not intended).
It’s pretty interesting that the essay writer seems pretty aware of this. Joe Morellos performance on the Take 5 is probably the most famous jazz drum solo recording. (Even that often gets edited out of cafe playlists). Nobody thinks Joe Morello is on the same tier as Roach or Williams, so why is this solo so famous? As the writer states, jazz needs all the fans it can get and Take 5 has elements that make it recognizable, fresh, and catchy.
Mikes Teller’s character in the movie makes a point emphatically that he wants to be remembered for greatness. This is also the ambition of the movie makes. This is not what devotional drumming is about though. Comparing the two is strange to me.
Going back to the popularity of Buddy Rich, many people might consider him the greatest jazz drummer, but how many of these people don’t also consider Miles Davis or John Coltrane the greatest jazz musician ever?
This article seems to miss the entire point of the movie...? Fletcher is not supposed to be an arbiter of how music is played, he's not even a neighbour to the idea of music as joy and entertainment. Fletcher's obsession is with three things: control, winning, and a sick and twisted idea of development. There is no room for studying theory in Fletcher's world, no room for collaboration with other students. There is only brutal, exacting perfection in Fletcher's ensemble and performances.
Thus it seems to me that the article is actually aligned with the themes in the movie: the actual nature of jazz, of musical education, of "originality" as the author puts it has been sucked out of Fletcher's musical world. His obsessive and abusive nature has guaranteed that outcome. Nor do I agree with the author's assessment that Andrew demonstrates "chutzpah" in the movie. As a matter of fact, my perspective is the opposite: Andrew has failed himself by falling under Fletcher's spell, in which there is no room for life, for relationships (c.f. Andrew's treatment of his girlfriend), and honestly, no room for true music. The result that Andrew is "ready[]... for a job on television" is, ironically, actually quite accurate. By the conclusion of the movie his father is rightly horrified at the risk Andrew now faces: extreme notoriety and the likelihood of an early death under such a stressful and dangerous regime. Andrew will be a caricature of a jazz artist.
In summary, while the treatment of historical facts and worship of less-than-ideal idols in the jazz realm can be considered marks against the movie, the overarching message of a disconnect between the world of Fletcher and the actual world of jazz is a deliberate point the movie is making.
I appreciate this perspective, but I think the issue is that jazz is removed enough from the purview of modern culture that the layperson may well assume that this is how a typical jazz program is really run. Most folks don’t have the context to be able to view it in the lens that you or I would.
I don’t disagree with the points you’re bringing up - I wonder if that message might have gotten across better if there had been a foil to Fletcher’s ensemble to ground the viewers as to what a “real life” healthy ensemble looks like.
Just for context, as someone who knows next to nothing about jazz or its subculture, when I watched the movie, my first instinct was "this is dysfunctional af and probably not representative." I get it though. I have the same feeling when I see pop culture/mainstream media depictions of something niche that I have a personal connection to and I can't relate to it.
Appreciate the callout, and yeah, hopefully others did the same as you. As someone whose job it was to get kids excited about jazz, I just felt very defeated after the movie came out. I got excited for months leading up to it knowing that jazz band was going to be in the spotlight for once (I taught at a very show-choir-centric high school), and then come to realize it’s almost like a psychological horror movie based around a jazz band. Not a fun realization. Also got tired very quickly of students (and their parents) asking me how many chairs I had thrown in rehearsal that week.
Per your last thought, I’ve taken to calling it the “Stuff You Should Know Experience.” I enjoyed listening to that podcast for several years before they did an episode on music (or something music-adjacent) and they started spouting off a bunch of stuff that sounded accurate coming off the tongue, but none of it was quite right. And then I took a step back and thought, “well, damn, if that’s how I felt after the one episode on a topic with which I’m more familiar, how often is this happening with every other episode?” I mentioned this in another thread on this post, but I can’t imagine how doctors must feel having to watch inaccurate depictions of their jobs all over the place.
Reminds me of this neologism by Michael Crichton:
I have not encountered this specifically, but I do have a friend who thought that the point of Whiplash was that to be brilliant at something, you have to be rally hard at yourself and Fletcher brought out the best in him. I think this is maybe a bit more likely - people likely intuitively assume that a normal music experience is not like this, but that if you want to be at the top, this is the way to go.
Which, to be fair, may be just as bad for shaping their expectations.
I think that personal biases may be the key to recognizing the pathology. This friend of mine is a doctor with an obviously unhealthy relationship to herself who also sees hard work and suppressing one's needs as the way to be good in her own life, so in a way it's obvious that she interprets the movie like this.
And honestly, I think that if the authors decided to more obviously tell us that what we're seeing is wrong, it would have made for a worse movie. I do wish they were more realistic about actually playing jazz.
There’s certainly a level of intensity that needs to be reached in order to excel to a level like we see in the movie, but to believe, or be led to believe, that the path we see in Whiplash is the only way to do it, or that it’s the healthy / correct way, is definitely a fraught takeaway from the film.
I have friends and peers who are currently “making it” in the jazz scene as composers, educators, and musicians. Some cut their teeth in New York, some worked their way up in and around the Midwest, and some did so outside of the US entirely. But one thing I can say with certainty that the ones who really rose to the top were indeed persistent, but were also some of the friendliest and most well-balanced. I know plenty of intense musicians (read: assholes) who also found success in the industry, but they are fewer and far between, and they almost always burn themselves out or burn enough bridges that folks don’t want them around.
I guess if I had to sum it up in sentence:
I think the intent of the movie is to show that it’s wrong (or at least not totally right or healthy), but I wish they had shown just how wrong by way of a foil in another successful musician or ensemble.
If you use movies as the basis for creating a world view, your world view is going to be heavily distorted.
I don't know, maybe that explains a lot about why people are so fearful of strangers these days.
When I moved to America, I was surprised that America was just like the movies/ tv shows.
All those absurdist jokes... weren't absurdist. That was the way it was.
Not 100% But I naturally assumed most media was BS.
I would hope most people do.
Agreed! Though I fear this is all too prevalent these days. And additionally, it feels like the less you know or understand about something, the more likely you are to base your understanding of it on its portrayal in media.
Maybe this is a sort of way to feed our own confirmation biases? i.e. somebody thinks jazz is an overly intellectual and out-of-touch art form, they see a movie like Whiplash, and they go “yup, I figured it was like that.” Not saying that’s right to do, of course, just wouldn’t be surprised if that was what lured people into that line of thinking.
Edit: I misread @nic’s comment at first and adjusted a few sentences
Yeah, my comment is a hot mess.
I expect media to be inaccurate, so I automatically assume everyone is like that, but it's probably a bad assumption.
Nah it made good enough sense; just a hasty first read on my part. And I’m with you there too, but I do fear it’s not the default for many, especially when the all-too-alluring biases we hold would be neatly confirmed by said media.
I agree on the dynamics between the two characters, but I still don't see where the movie is directing any of this as commentary specifically towards jazz. Even with what you're saying about originality, Andrew spontaneously starts the song of his own accord at the end, and IMO that's portrayed as a minor "victory" Andrew takes by going off Fletcher's pristine program. That's mostly about control, and does ultimately ends up where you're describing; everything in it is about personal dynamics.
If it does have a message that's related to jazz - more broadly, music - to me it doesn't seem to be on the merits of Whiplash or within its text. What anchors a contrast of "the actual nature of jazz", or any music at all, to Andrew's experience in the movie? There's nothing outside of the scope of the two characters; there's no other teacher at the university, no interaction with another student, no other courses, no one else at a jazz set, no other bands at the competitions, no gigs, and no other opportunities that provide literally any perspective that this isn't the way things are in an academic environment or in the music scene. Considering the actual nature of jazz, why does Fletcher have a job in the first place if the academic scene isn't supposed to be inherently like Chazelle portrays it?
I see nothing in its thesis that can't be applied to someone in any other occupation, art, sport, etc. That's all fine as set-dressing, but that doesn't seem to have any message specific to music; if it's supposed to, it seems either off-base or ends up preying on a lack of knowledge from the audience.
I don't think whiplash is supposed to be an accurate jazz movie. I think jazz is just used as the vehicle about a story of determination, abuse, and if things like success are worth it and at what cost. So with that in mind, it's sorta like pointing out that Rocky isn't an accurate boxing movie.
I thought so too.
Besides what movie actually nails the reality of whatever profession it chooses to depict as part of the story?
I remember one of my linguistics friends being pissed about Arrival getting stuff wrong lol. It's super rare to get things right and not to cut corners as you're aiming for the general audience and not a niche of professionals.
Sure, but using it as a focal vehicle and then misrepresenting it is lazy writing. Or, if they do stretch the truth, it shouldn't be cutting corners - it should be carrying the spirit where technicality fails it. That can be hard, but that's the writer's, director's, actor's, and the rest of the set's job to keep suspension of disbelief. Not much reason to excuse it.
Bad technology is the thing that personally takes me out of movies trying to be serious, and I find it really actively detrimental. Skyfall took a notoriously technology-savvy character and turned him into a fucking idiot with one bad scene. I think it's a hallmark of a good script to be able to speak to laypeople over those things without alienating a knowing audience. Like, I love My Cousin Vinny; lawyers also seem to love it! With Whiplash, the love doesn't seem to be there from the crowd it's about, and it's articulated pretty well why.
Or, hell - I know Rocky might be a throwaway example, but I looked around because I was curious. It seems like boxers didn't have a beef with the original film's boxing? Muhammad Ali levied some criticism at Rocky 2 at the racial message it sent to the US, but before that Ali was with Stallone presenting an Oscar the year Rocky won. Mike Tyson was dancing around wanting to be in one of the movies, but he didn't want to lose. (Not sure why he did Punch-Out!!...) Chuck Wepner and Joe Fraizer voiced that they didn't receive credit for their part in its inspiration, (and Frazier's statue should've replaced the stupid Rocky statue,) but two boxers saying Rocky was too close to their lives seems to endorse that it carries the spirit of their career. Sure, no one can take hits like the character does - Sylvester Stallone couldn't, he asked for Carl Weathers to actually punch him and went to the hospital. By 4 the series goes full ridiculous. But the first movie's content seems pretty lock-step with the subject matter.
Then again, I'm not a boxer. :^)
Adam Neely has a video coming to similar conclusions. He agrees with the ridiculousness of the competition (noting for example that "first and second" chairs sometimes aren't even by skill IIRC), that Buddy Rich is a shitty idol, and that this really ought to be some other genre of movie. He also notes this is a really stale perception of jazz in academia; hip-hop has taken a huge role in jazz, and Fletcher's "Starbucks crap" jeer is pretty much aimed at his own playing in the bar.
La La Land has similar sorts of things going on, and I have a family member in the arts who, similarly, hates it! I love both of these as movies, but it does rub me the wrong way. I haven't seen First Man or Babylon and I wonder if they also have off-base or myopic views of the subject matter...
In high school our symphonic/concert bands would assign chairs based on skill, but our jazz band would assign the second chair to the person who could improvise the best. Not sure how prevalent that approach is.
Jazz drummer here. I did not care for Whiplash AT ALL, but I'm not going to go into detail because I have no desire to get worked up all over again. But I was actually angry after my one and only viewing.
Ethan Iverson wrote a long piece in response to Whiplash back when the movie came out which is worth a read. It is - among other things - an extended meditation on the role of the drummer in jazz, "devotional" drumming vs. stage band drumming, and of course Buddy Rich's place in all that. https://ethaniverson.com/rhythm-and-blues/the-drum-thing-or-a-brief-history-of-whiplash-or-im-generalizing-here/
Hello, fellow jazz drummer! I came here to post Iverson’s article as well; appreciate you doing so.
I permit myself to believe that my feelings about Whiplash are likely how doctors feel about (insert any show about hospitals/doctors here), so I try not to let it get to me too much, but yeah, I was definitely yelling into the cosmos after my viewing too. Especially with jazz being so far removed from pop culture at this point, I feel like a movie like this can almost damage the reputation and scare off kids who would otherwise have wanted to get involved. I was teaching high school band (including jazz band) when the movie released, so I was pretty upset by that whole aspect of it.
Also on a technical level, I hate that it showed somebody practicing till their hands bled. If your hands bleed when you practice drumming, irrespective of the amount of practice you’re doing, you probably shouldn’t be doing this at the collegiate level because your technique is clearly garbage.
Also arbitrarily calling an uptempo piece “double time swing” like that means anything by itself.
Also the director “conducting” the drum solo at the end like that makes any sense.
Haha and now I’m all riled up again!
Thank you! The problems with the movie are so obvious to every musician I know in real life, but in online settings I often feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I try to discuss the movie (which is why I usually don't bother trying anymore.) It's nice to see someone else who gets it.
This is a pretty strong conclusion. I don’t think it’s correct to say. People who think Taco Bell is the best Mexican food are not necessarily racist. I think they are ignorant. But there are non-race related reasons people would have these opinions.
I am white, but I grew up listening to jazz. I did not watch late night shows or listen to big band. So I had only a vague idea of buddy rich when I saw whiplash, while I grew up understanding Tony Williams was the greatest.
I think the writer here understands that this isn’t a movie about jazz. It’s a movie made mostly by white people staring mostly white people using jazz as setting. The essays emphasis on devotion playing is a concept I had not been aware of but it totally makes sense. I have a definitely heard people say a good jazz drummer is a drummer you never notice when you’re not supposed to. The reality is that kind of drummer would be a completely different movie. It would be like a movie about an offensive lineman not a quarterback. (Reference to The Blind Side not intended).
It’s pretty interesting that the essay writer seems pretty aware of this. Joe Morellos performance on the Take 5 is probably the most famous jazz drum solo recording. (Even that often gets edited out of cafe playlists). Nobody thinks Joe Morello is on the same tier as Roach or Williams, so why is this solo so famous? As the writer states, jazz needs all the fans it can get and Take 5 has elements that make it recognizable, fresh, and catchy.
Mikes Teller’s character in the movie makes a point emphatically that he wants to be remembered for greatness. This is also the ambition of the movie makes. This is not what devotional drumming is about though. Comparing the two is strange to me.
Going back to the popularity of Buddy Rich, many people might consider him the greatest jazz drummer, but how many of these people don’t also consider Miles Davis or John Coltrane the greatest jazz musician ever?