Can Jazz Be Saved?

[timwat]

My teacher has told me:

 

When someone is so busy they twiddle over the soloist - that's crap.

When a band can't play in time - that's crap.

When musos play for themselves or to impress each other - that's crap.

When someone isn't prepared and plays tentatively - that's crap.

When someone is playing it safe and just phoning it in, rather than taking risks - that's crap.

 

IMHO, he's done a pretty solid job describing crap.

[zyzik]

IMHO, he's done a pretty solid job describing crap.

 

any pictures?

 

[timwat]

IMHO, he's done a pretty solid job describing crap.

 

any pictures?

 

 

Every time I look in the mirror.

[zyzik]

Respect the audience, play with authority and stop acting like it's 1959.

 

Dave Horne, Marino don't you agree?

[SK]

Blaming the victim, absolutely. In terms of public awareness of 'great music', we're in a post-music world, yet blame is placed on the music instead of the true cause. I'm sure if they'd asked "Is art and great music important?" the response would have been overwhelming... "oh yes, yes, we must protect the arts!"

 

Aside from the recent poll, the article is nothing new. It seems to want to hasten it, to kill off jazz once and for all, like jazz is in a nursing home and needs an end of life consultation. The article's a waste, since the traditional jazz era ALREADY died by the late 70's, according to Miles Davis. So it's only a slap at musical creativity, and lowers the common denominator of the listening masses further.

 

Classical and jazz were popular forms of music in their days - their art just out-survived their popularity. Notice we don't hear much about "classical music is dead", but it must be according to the media's criteria.

 

Bottom line: musical creativity exists in spite of polls and meaningless articles like this one.

 

For the few jazz haters out there, I'm not saying all jazz is great. But don't suggest that none of it is.

 

[MonksDream]

Jazz has become a chamber music. It is something that people go to school to learn, and it sounds like it. Jazz should be street music, it should reflect the culture of the current time.

I totally agree. Jazz started as street music, and although there's a place for intellectual exploration it need not be considered the only "valid" expression in the music. I see jazz as a continuum that can express joy, pain, humour, and the same vast range of emotions and ideas as any other style of music. The limitation is the artist not the style. And it's not a question of the age of the style. Blues, rock, country and hip-hop manage to reflect current culture and the youngest of them is 30 years old.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love and play standards, and love more traditional acoustic jazz styles, but they aren't the end all be all of jazz. Jazz should be a living, breathing entity, not the codified chamber music it has generally become.

I couldn't agree more! I think I've just found my new signature quote

[zephonic]

Since we're here, Mac vs. PC, anyone?

[RABid]

>>>Can Jazz Be Saved?

 

I don't think so unless jazz musicians start playing for listeners not for themselves and they stop practicing scales and sh$t on stage. Unnecessary complexity and lack of message in it kill jazz.

 

 

...

this added ... zyzik's approach is to blame the victim. ...

 

Not at all. I understand exactly what he means and Dave, that was a really harsh comment. Youve have many comments on this forum about correct jazz voicing and what is acceptable. At times you seem very locked in to a narrow focus of what a jazz musician should be and how jazz music should be structured. Wynton Marsalis has the same view and to be honest I cannot listen to him. Music should not be a formula and it should not be so restrictive. You cannot be a real musician just by practicing scales 4 hours a day and studying textbooks on theory. I can listen to Dizzy or Monk all day. I cannot get through two songs of many modern jazz players that measure their ability by how many notes they squeeze into a run or how well they can diagnose the voicings used in a recording. Well, I can, but it is hard to find good modern jazz.

 

Anyway, like everything else in this world Jazz will be remembered by the effect it leaves on new generations of music. Traits will be passed down and occasionally a descendant will closely resemble an ancestor.

 

[ITGITC]

Since we're here, Mac vs. PC, anyone?

 

I dunno...

 

I kinda favor THE RED ONE.

 

[J. Dan]

As I'm reading through this, I'm thinking to myself - boy some of my opinions, and probably some of the others in here, really only apply to certain Jazz subgroups.

 

So the question is - as you're reading this and posting your comments, what Jazz are you thinking of.

 

I'm generally thinking of more modern instrumental Jazz that tends to be a lot of younger guys - college age, with some older cats mixed in... mostly trio's and quartets.

 

OTOH - my Mother-in-law is really involved in the St. Louis Jazz Club and in fact used to book bands. That whole group is into Dixieland and is an older crowd, and I think has been shrinking.

 

A few years back, swing dancing made a come-back and some bands have capitalized on it by playing swing music - several are still going strong.

 

Don't see any Big-Band/crooner type Jazz, but if there was any, I'd go see it in a heartbeat. Harry Connick Jr. had helped bring it back for a while there - and I think during that time a lot of people went back and discovered (or re-discovered) such greats as Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, etc.

 

Just about any nice restaurant will have soft Jazz playing - usually just a piano, sometimes as much as a trio, but more background music - still there's lots of it out there.

 

I've probably left some styles out. My point is that "Jazz" covers a lot of musical styles.

[Dave Horne]

RABid

Youve have many comments on this forum about correct jazz voicing and what is acceptable.

Really? Would you be so kind and provide a link? I cannot recall the last time I gave a correct jazz voicing.

 

 

 

 

At times you seem very locked in to a narrow focus of what a jazz musician should be and how jazz music should be structured. Wynton Marsalis has the same view and to be honest I cannot listen to him.

Wynton and I hold the same views? Really? Wow. You know Rabid, Wynton speaks highly of you.

 

 

 

Music should not be a formula and it should not be so restrictive. You cannot be a real musician just by practicing scales 4 hours a day and studying textbooks on theory.

 

I never said that music should be formulamatic. I choose to use maybe more patterns in my playing than you, though I can't remember the last time I heard you play. The purpose of trying to play cleanly (by practicing everything to include scales, all kinds of scales), is not to get in the way of the music. There's nothing more sad (and at times painful) than a musician who has great ideas but who stumbles over his own fingers, drawing attention to his lack of technique instead of letting the audience just listen and appreciate his music.

 

Theory - it just makes it easier to communicate with other musicians if you all speak the same language.

 

 

RABid, you know, some time ago gangsu got on my case since I am vocal about many things. She said in so many words, put up or shut up. Even though I've made my living by actually playing for over 35 years I never got into recording myself.

Perhaps this might be something for you to ponder.

 

Why not join the crowd and post some mp3's? Your opinions might just be given more weight if you back them up with more than mere words.

 

 

 

 

 

[ITGITC]

As I'm reading through this, I'm thinking to myself - boy some of my opinions, and probably some of the others in here, really only apply to certain Jazz subgroups.

 

So the question is - as you're reading this and posting your comments, what Jazz are you thinking of.

 

Great question!

 

And sometimes I think that I (we) often paint with a brush that may be a bit too broad. So examples of the artists and/or the tunes we're talking about would help a lot.

 

Especially "Smooth Jazz".

 

Now, some would categorize Fourplay as Smooth Jazz. Would you?

 

And if you do, then I could never say that I don't care for Smooth Jazz because I think Fourplay has come out with some music that I can listen to over and over again (that's my litmus test, btw).

 

What about Fattburger or The Rippingtons? Do you put them in the Smooth Jazz record bin? Probably so. But I've enjoyed a lot of their music.

 

And Prince. Yeah Prince. He came out with some pretty jazzy stuff many years ago that was played on Smooth Jazz stations before anyone had coined the term "Smooth Jazz". So did Herbie.

 

And how 'bout Pat Metheny? What type of jazz is his music? How would you 'splain it, Lucy?

 

No. I don't think Jazz needs to be saved.

 

But I do think that lots of Americans need to take a music appreciation class... or something.

 

Ummmm, Don't you?

 

 

 

[Garrafon]

What's jazz?

 

Just go watch this video (feel free to skip the first 43 seconds)...and you will know that great music and great musicianship (together with jazz influences) are alive and well. Most importantly...enjoy....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g35VEfTZ65s&feature=PlayList&p=49AD0941951583BA&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4

[Dave Horne]

Garrafon, does it need to be stated that Aaron Copland was the composer?

 

This has been a public service announcement.

 

I'd like to see the whiteboard idiot transcribe that one.

[dementia13]

I got a bad feeling about ten years ago, when a number of great jazz artists died in quick succession. I had a sense of the day passing, because there aren't so many young artists coming up to take their place. I think that no art form is dead if there are still people who can find something to say in it. But jazz is not as vital as it once was. There's a Miles Davis biography film ("The Miles Davis Story"?), where one of his old sidemen said something that I think hits the nail on the head. He said that the moment the jazz community decided not to accept fusion, that's the moment that jazz stopped innovating. I agree: experimentation goes hand in hand with the greatest jazz, and when you start setting the rules about what's proper, you're reserving your place in a museum. Museums are where dead things go to be honored and observed. (Rock, whose museum is located in Cleveland, is already far down this road). That's also why I disagree with the comments of Zyzzz or whatever his name is: sometimes guys stretch the boundaries to where the average listener is not going to understand what they're doing. Worrying about whether the audience will follow really isn't compatible with pushing the envelope to see how far you can take it. That kind of avant-gardism isn't even close to being typical of all jazz, anyway, so it sounds like more of a personal gripe than a legitimate observation.

[JeffLearman]

Sorry, but this just makes me think of a Monty Python scene.

 

"Bring out your dead!"

"Ok, here's one" (dumps Jazz on the pallet)

Jazz: "I'm not dead yet!"

 

 

Seriously, Jazz will never need "saving", just as classical music won't. But don't expect to get rich on it.

[dementia13]

Sir Lancelot: Jazz, who when it seemed was about to recover, suddenly felt the cold grip of death...

Jazz: aaaaaargh!

[JeffLearman]

What's jazz?

 

Just go watch this video (feel free to skip the first 43 seconds)...and you will know that great music and great musicianship (together with jazz influences) are alive and well. Most importantly...enjoy....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g35VEfTZ65s&feature=PlayList&p=49AD0941951583BA&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4

One of the things I love about that one is that it defies categorization. I always liked ELP's version, too.

[JeffLearman]

I got a bad feeling about ten years ago, when a number of great jazz artists died in quick succession. I had a sense of the day passing, because there aren't so many young artists coming up to take their place. I think that no art form is dead if there are still people who can find something to say in it. But jazz is not as vital as it once was. There's a Miles Davis biography film ("The Miles Davis Story"?), where one of his old sidemen said something that I think hits the nail on the head. He said that the moment the jazz community decided not to accept fusion, that's the moment that jazz stopped innovating. I agree: experimentation goes hand in hand with the greatest jazz, and when you start setting the rules about what's proper, you're reserving your place in a museum. Museums are where dead things go to be honored and observed. (Rock, whose museum is located in Cleveland, is already far down this road). That's also why I disagree with the comments of Zyzzz or whatever his name is: sometimes guys stretch the boundaries to where the average listener is not going to understand what they're doing. Worrying about whether the audience will follow really isn't compatible with pushing the envelope to see how far you can take it. That kind of avant-gardism isn't even close to being typical of all jazz, anyway, so it sounds like more of a personal gripe than a legitimate observation.

Never mind the fact that they rejected fusion because, well, most of it sucked. But, point well taken.

 

I remember hearing a special retrospective on Fusion, and it was amusing to hear folks like Stanley Clark and Pat Metheney basically come out and say, yeah, well, most of it did suck.

 

But we've moved on, and Bela Fleck is a great example of a real fusion of jazz and other styles, not just an overamped case of jazz musicians playing bad rock with weak composition.

 

There will always be branches of jazz (and classical) that go farther than any but the lofty few can follow. Especially with jazz, which doesn't just play a tune, but plays off an assumed background of obviousness about a tune, dancing around it and teasing you with it rather than hitting you over the head with it. And when jazz musicians who also know Dvorak and Stravinksi are playing for other musicians with the same shared basis, they don't expect everyone to clap along. But it won't stop 'em from playing it.

[David Loving]

You always will have music that jazz snobs will listen to [and play] mainly because no one else will...

[David Loving]

Actually one can turn into a pretty good player by practicing scales 4 hours a day and studying theory...at least where I come from...

[SMcD]

I agree with most of the points here. However, I'd have to disagree that music should always be geared EXCLUSIVELY to the audience-Sometimes, it's cool to hear musos playing for musos.

 

An extension of the idea of poor music education is the resulting public perception of jazz. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Say "jazz" to the average person, and they'll say "Kenny G" back to you.

[Fusker]

I agree with most of the points here. However, I'd have to disagree that music should always be geared EXCLUSIVELY to the audience-Sometimes, it's cool to hear musos playing for musos.

 

An extension of the idea of poor music education is the resulting public perception of jazz. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Say "jazz" to the average person, and they'll say "Kenny G" back to you.

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, just threw up in my mouth a little

[richwhite9]

I got a bad feeling about ten years ago, when a number of great jazz artists died in quick succession. I had a sense of the day passing, because there aren't so many young artists coming up to take their place. I think that no art form is dead if there are still people who can find something to say in it. But jazz is not as vital as it once was. .

 

Every artform has periods of great growth and periods or stagnation. If Powell and Munk are the beginnings of modern jazz then there's a 30-year period of enormous growth in Jazz from 1947 to 1977 followed by 30 years of digestion and oftentimes stagnation. The best recent players digest the past and add some ecleticism but are not as innovative in melody and harmony as the Golden Years IMHO.

 

Not everyone can be first but many can add finesse.

 

Martin Medeski and Woods, Jackie Terrason, etc. There are many out there that are digesting or pushing new directions and some like Herbie continue to amaze with fluid and creative harmonic progressions.

[orangefunk]

 

I remember hearing a special retrospective on Fusion, and it was amusing to hear folks like Stanley Clark and Pat Metheney basically come out and say, yeah, well, most of it did suck.

 

The first fusion period from the late 60s to the mid 70s was really fantastic... but after '75 I think a certain amount of apathy and cynicism set in... fusionists started doing disco beats with poor hooks, uninteresting changes and terrible singers.. even the stuff that was merely good all started sounding the same (rhodes + moog + solina)...

 

People seem to look down on fusion, and say it was a failed experiment that died in 1975 but I think there was still a treasure trove of music to be had... Holdsworth, Oregon, Indo-jazz, particularly the stuff on ECM, Enja and the like...

 

[orangefunk]

I got a bad feeling about ten years ago, when a number of great jazz artists died in quick succession. I had a sense of the day passing, because there aren't so many young artists coming up to take their place. I think that no art form is dead if there are still people who can find something to say in it. But jazz is not as vital as it once was. .

 

Every artform has periods of great growth and periods or stagnation. If Powell and Munk are the beginnings of modern jazz then there's a 30-year period of enormous growth in Jazz from 1947 to 1977 followed by 30 years of digestion and oftentimes stagnation. The best recent players digest the past and add some ecleticism but are not as innovative in melody and harmony as the Golden Years IMHO.

 

Not everyone can be first but many can add finesse.

 

Martin Medeski and Woods, Jackie Terrason, etc. There are many out there that are digesting or pushing new directions and some like Herbie continue to amaze with fluid and creative harmonic progressions.

 

Good post... kind of like how I feel... I actually like Herbie Hancock more than the stuff he did in the 70s... sacrilege eh? Burn me at the stake... Actually, I should clarify that statement somewhat... I prefer Herbie's live band now to his classic band, but I can't relate to the CDs a lot of these guys do...

[wmp]

Jazz, like rock and blues, suffers from an embarrassing lack of talent and stack of hacks taking all the paying gigs

Not all, but as many as I can get.

 

[zyzik]

Blaming the victim, absolutely. In terms of public awareness of 'great music', we're in a post-music world, yet blame is placed on the music instead of the true cause. I'm sure if they'd asked "Is art and great music important?" the response would have been overwhelming... "oh yes, yes, we must protect the arts!"

 

not at all, too many people are tying to hide their poor creations under the term "art". Art is not excuse but a way of delivery artist feelings in unique and original way. Most jazz musicians today don't deliver a s$it, hence the problem.

 

[Joe Muscara]

Maybe there's always good and bad in a particular genre, often in similar proportions, but in certain periods the bad or weak stuff gets more popular or the good gets overlooked. It's easy to see that once jazz was no longer popular music, the good was harder to find and maybe when jazz did get noticed, it was for slicker stuff that was promoted heavily because someone was trying to make a buck from it.

 

Another way of saying that is that there are a few posts above where people say, "such-and-such was a bad period, but I liked these artists/albums from that era." Meaning, maybe it wasn't so bad after all.

[SK]

too many people are tying to hide their poor creations under the term "art". Art is not excuse but a way of delivery artist feelings in unique and original way. Most jazz musicians today don't deliver a s$it, hence the problem.

Delirium