Tyler Grant86
Regular
267 messages
joined Dec 2002
Let me illustrate the difference between John Zorn and David Douglas for you—I’ll tell you about what an American journalist experienced at a festival over in Europe... He approached Zorn for an interview, only to be met with a cold refusal; the guy simply doesn't do interviews. A few minutes later, he runs into David Douglas. He asks him for the same thing, and Douglas starts explaining that he has to rush backstage because his set starts in fifteen minutes, but he gives his word that they will sit down for the interview after the show.
Now, that journalist—convinced Douglas had just blown him off, albeit more politely—decides to give up on the interview entirely. But once the concert wraps up, there is Douglas, actively searching the hall for the man just so they can finally talk.
Regarding fees: Chris Eckman mentioned to me recently that in Seattle, Zorn is pulling in about $2,000 per gig because nobody is willing to pay him more—everything he does in Europe or Japan is essentially a grind. The same applies to lodging; while he stays in standard three-star hotels in the States without issue, out there he only plays luxury venues. So, who is really winning here?
And yes, Douglas's fee is significantly lower, despite the fact that over the last five years, his status in America has far surpassed Zorn's. In the US, he commands higher fees than Zorn, yet when he plays in Europe, he accepts similar rates and doesn't inflate them by ten or fifteen times, even though he could. It comes down to their fundamental approach: Zorn has evolved into a pure music businessman, whereas David Douglas has proven himself to be a phenomenal musician and a deeply humble man who doesn't insist on those aforementioned five-star accommodations.
I was a hardcore John Zorn fan from the late eighties until about seven or eight years ago. Then, I gradually got the chance to listen to a hell of a lot more music—specifically Japanese music—and it became clear to me that he isn't quite as original as I once believed. That made sense of a statement Roscoe Mitchell made back around '89. It was relayed through a translator back then (I think the current Prime Minister wasn't even around to edit it back then... haha):
"John Zorn today is what Stan Getz was in the fifties. Back then, Getz was stealing from Lee Konitz and knew exactly how to monetize it; today, Zorn cites us (the Art Ensemble of Chicago) and a few others as his influences, when in reality, he is shamelessly copying our ideas and profiting from them."
For years, I dismissed that as the bitter rant of a frustrated, aging musician. Eventually, I realized Roscoe was right...