How can younger musicians be attracted to a career in jazz music?

[jazzypaul]

This question has been touched upon in another thread, but I'd like to take a little bit more positive of a look at it...

I think it takes 3 things...

1) an interest in the music. As long as there are musicians out there doing things to advance the music in easily digestable ways (Joshua Redman, Chris Potter, Christian McBride, Kenny Garrett, Branford, among others) I think that interest alone might be a lot more accesible of a goal than it was, say, 20-25 years ago, when the "young lions" had to look back 10-20 years to find any inspiration.

2) Money. As much as all of us "jazz idealists" would like to say this doesn't matter, it does. If I was Diana Krall, selling the amount of records she's selling and working the gigs she's working, I'd wear skimpy dresses and show off my legs too. But the upswing is, that album proved that JAZZ CAN SELL. We need to market jazz like popular music. Let's face it, look at some of the most popular rock bands out there right now. They're simply popular because the right people stood up and said "hey, general public, listen to Blink 182!!" And people did. Now let's do that with Christian McBride, and let's see what happens. I think we might just like the results.

3) Remember that jazz is more than the Cole Porter songbook. my current group plays "Losing My Religion" by R.E.M., "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Metallica, and "White Rabbit" by Jefferson Airplane. We're pulling steady gigs, loaded with kids who want to come see us. Hell, we just found out today that one of the local newspapers wrote about us and we didn't even know it!!We're not playing JAZZ: Old People's Music, we're playing JAZZ: OUR MUSIC. See the difference? When people can claim something as their own, they're more willing to cling to it.

That's my thought on the situation. Keep fresh music visible, put that music in situations where it can sell and vary setlists. Once kids KNOW they can do these things, then jazz might be a career choice instead of an interesting diversion.

[Pharaohrock]

I don't think there's any problem getting decently talented young people into the music, I think the problem comes in in terms of attracting the superior talent....right now, the main talent base for jazz comes straight out of the suburbs. Now, not that there's anything wrong with this, but the fact is, a lot of these people have a similar level of talent. I'm curious as to whether there is some stone out there that needs to be turned over, where we're going to discover talent that hitherto had been totally neglected...

[Pharaohrock]

We need a big Hollywood movie about Miles or Chet Baker or someone else all the ladies would dig, so then a bunch of young guys would start playing jazz like Miles or like Chet, just to get laid. Some of these boys would actually realize the music was worthy on its own terms, and bingo! New talent. like Miles like Chet

[jazzypaul]

the only real problem with people coming from the suburbs as opposed to the city stems not from the technical ability, but rather, the way people grow up, the very essence of who they become. Because what you are is what you play. Ask Bird..."If you don't live it, it won't come out of your horn." And that's the truth. You live the blues, you'll play the blues. You live Play Station and Capri-Sun while Mom hustles you to soccer practice, then you'll play that. The problem is, no one wants to hear that. Yes, you can learn the technical aspects of how to play a blues, how to play a flatted fifth, how to get the most of the flatted 9th in the chord. But you have to HEAR that, and FEEL that to make it worth something. Jazz, having become the music of the high class and upper-middle class, is denied that. And, in some ways, that's a good thing. I don't WANT anyone to live the blues to feel it enough to make it sound like something. It makes for an interesting cunundrum...

[Pharaohrock]

I agree wholeheartedly...would you concede though that jazz needs to expand the demographics of its talent base, whether this means going into the city or not.....? BTW, one thing to keep in mind which I have to remind myself of, is that we talk about jazz "talent" and jazz musicians from a very Ameri-centric perspective. The reality is, Jazz probably has more real currency in the culture of European countries than it does in the U.S. anymore. There's just a lot more respect for it over there....Japan to a lesser extent because Japan isn't really putting out that many talented players compared to some of the Europeans. One of the hardest things to fully accept though is that Jazz is no longer just American- it's a fully global phenomenon. So what about the sociology of young jazz musicians in Europe or Japan today? Perhaps this would help to illuminate the situation here at home better...?

[John Delaney]

The biggest problem is that it is very difficult to make a decent living playing jazz. Being talented doesn't guarantee a reasonable income as the market for jazz is so small.
It doesn't take long for young musicians to find that out.
I dare say that a number of household names to jazz fans probably make less than the average wage.

[jazzypaul]

Well, I can address a couple of points here...

For Pharoahrock, I agree the European scene, and what's coming out of it is, well, quite impressive. Jazz certainly is a global phenomenon these days and, yes, it does seem as if the Europeans are putting out the more forward thinking stuff to a large extent. (look to ECM and EST's last two records, as well as the fact that, let's face it, the two best jazz labels out there right now are European: Criss-Cross and Nagel-Heyer) It also is in Europe's favor that their musical education is far more broad based. American music education in public schools is largely "Classical Music. Legit Music. Jazz & Blues are dead and now we have Rock & Roll." That WAS my public school musical education, and if it wasn't for a book on HEAVY METAL turning me onto Bitches Brew, I would have never known what jazz was all about. We most definitely need to change the way we think about this music and the way we teach it to others. I would like to hope however, that there might still be more to come from our own shores.

As for John, you need to keep in mind, most of the jazz guys, even the biggest names, still teach, do clinics, get sponsorships, and the whole nine yards. Even for the guys that play every night, playing is still only a small part of it. Yes, I know jazzers that are scraping by, but I also know quite a few who have gorgeous homes in gorgeous neighborhoods, because they're smart enough to teach as well as play. It is very rare in this day and age to find pros who simply play and do nothing else. If this is imparted to those young musicians, they might just see that yes, they CAN be creative about what they do, and still make money at the same time.

[andreimatorin]

Personally, I disagree that just because a musician might grow up with playstation, caprisun, and soccer practices, he wont have any interesting ideas to express. Yes, he might have something different to say than a kid that grew up in different, harder conditions, but just like writers it's not like the only good writers in history have grown up in the city or whatever.

Being a young musician myself (senior jazz violonist in HS), i feel that the worse part is really musicians not being motivated to pusue music studies. I know sooo many great musicians that have graduated before me but who decided to go into different fields of study.
I guess i would agree that the thing to do would be to show young people that jazz isn't just a career for the martyrs.

[jazzypaul]

Personally, I disagree that just because a musician might grow up with playstation, caprisun, and soccer practices, he wont have any interesting ideas to express. Yes, he might have something different to say than a kid that grew up in different, harder conditions,
Keep this very important idea in mind: If you don't live it, it won't come out of your horn. You play what you are. As I said in my post, I TRULY hope that most players DON'T live the lives that Parker, Baker and Armstrong did that gave them their sounds and ideas. And yes, Ellington and Miles both grew up middle class, and yes, it did affect the way they play. But don't think for a second that you know how to play the blues without living it. You can play blues changes, but it'll sound like changes. And think about that statement that you made...

but just like writers it's not like the only good writers in history have grown up in the city or whatever

Yes, and look at Faulkner or Tennessee Williams. These guys struggled to make sense of their surroundings. They struggled with their lives, and that struggle comes through in their writing.

I'm not saying that suburbanites can't play good jazz, but before you CAN truly play at that level that we all admire, you need to have your heart broken by an evil evil evil woman (or man as the case may be) you need to be trashed on a bandstand, you need to feel the bittersweet blues of everyday life to truly appreciate the joys of everyday life. And the problem lies therein: Too many of today's jazz musicians come from situations where they are shielded from the pain of falling off of their bikes, getting your ass kicked at 3pm out by the swing sets or, hell, even being subjected to the latest Blink 182 album. What I am getting at (in case you were wondering) is that many of those kids have to seriously work at getting to the point where there lives are lived in enough to tell a good story. It isn't just notes, and I don't care what your teachers tell you. You're on the stand to tell an audience about the crazy stuff you saw last night on the way to the gig, the hot chick that you just hooked up with, the hot chick that just dumped you for the drummer, (the drummers are always the coolest of the bunch, doncha know...) not that you know how to attach scales in every mode to the tune you're playing.

Now that I'm out of breath...

[andreimatorin]

So you're saying the difference between John Coltrane and that Saxophonist playing at the restaurant downtown is that coltrane got dumped more times? Wow, i'm glad i found that out, cause i was about to go practice! Sure makes things kinda simple.

[jazzypaul]

Not at all, Coltrane obviously practiced constantly, but if you don't think Coltrane had some serious stories to tell, you're completely mistaken. When you play, if you're not a total hack, you play the sound of you. If the sound of you is the sound of someone who has seen pain (which Coltrane had) or the sound of someone who is searching for something deeply spiritual to say (which Coltrane was) or the sound of someone deeply in love with life, humanity and God (which Coltrane was) then that will come out. Listen to Giant Steps and listen to his solo. That is the sound of someone who has burst free from the shackles of drug addiction who is now free to roam. That solo says an awful lot for a tune that isn't even 6 minutes long. Listen to his solo on My Favorite Things from Newport '63. Again, sounds like a man searching, quite possibly, and possibly somewhat futily, for his favorite things. But still, I hear Coltrane, and I hear a man who has lived and is telling me a story.

Now, if the sound of you is, as I have previously stated, the sound of sipping Capri Suns while playing Tekken Fighter on the play station waiting for mom to pick you up for soccer practice, then that's what you're going to sound like. If you spend your life listening to Coltrane CD's, great, you may pick up a couple of his tricks, but you won't have his motivation. Listening is a HUGE part of it. Practicing is an EVEN BIGGER part of it. But, once again, quoting Bird, If you don't LIVE it, it won't come out of your horn.

This isn't to say that you won't be able to play scales at light speed, or play interesting subs or have perfect time. I don't know you, you may be able to do all of these things. But what's there to make you soulful like Cannonball, funky like Eddie Harris, searingly meaningful like Trane, Tense like Bud Powell, quirky like Monk, or scary like Mingus? Without having lived their lives, they all would have still been virtuoso musicians. They had the chops, they put in the time, they paid their dues. But it was the stuff that happened in between that shaped their conception of the music.

The reason that the music stopped growing for a while was because everyone looked to the past without injecting their presents or their futures. Now we're seeing guys putting THEMSELVES into the music. Mehldau's one eclectic dude, and he puts that out there. Redman's growing as a human being, and that's evident. Chris Potter is playing like crazy with everyone that will have him, he's travelled the world, and his last two albums sound like that. Christian McBride is a wonderful, articulate and funny human being that sees jazz as far more than just jazz, and that shows too. Jazz is more exciting now than it had been for a good long time.

Now what I'm saying isn't to slam the kids from the suburbs, it's to say, "what story are you going to tell me?" With your last post, you make my point brutally clear. These days, the kids that are coming up now have been told so many times that it's all about technique that they forget about the story. "who cares about the story, I can rip through Giant Steps!!" Maybe you can. But when was the last time you heard someone rip through Giant Steps in a manner that made you say, "that's as good as Trane!!!"? Never, because people look at Giant Steps as a way to show off their chops. Again, quoting Bird..."Learn everything. Then forget it." What he's saying here is that the idea is to not just learn it, it's to internalize it. Internalizing it means that the chops just flow out, while you're telling your story. (Bruce Lee also held to this maxim when teaching Jeet Kune Do, his variation on Kung Fu)

So, before you criticize again, the more important thing I want to know about is this: What's your story?

[andreimatorin]

i dont think any of the stuff you said is new to me. and I'm not defending myself when i say this, but i just wanted to state that just because one grows up in the suburbs does not mean he will be any less talented than if he had grown up in the city. Yes, there might be less "interesting" things going on in "suburbs" but that doesn't necessarily affect the course of one's life and the stories they have to tell so much.

I did not intend to criticize anyone and am sorry you took my original post so personally, i was just trying to respectully disagree on one of the points u made. maybe it was just a misunderstanding...

[champjams]

Hey JazzyPaul....I'm a spoiled white girl from Oklahoma and I'll play some changes with you anyday.

The things you say about playing who you are, of course that is true. You can't hide your true self in your music...You play who you are. But saying that someone's music tells more tales because they lived a more traumatic life - that is like saying that some people's lives are just invalid. Who are you to judge? Why must people live through horrible circumstances to have a beautiful self to expose in music? Cannot joy be expressed in music?

People can have strong passionate selves regardless of how traumatic their lives have been. Their music can convey as much truth and beauty as Bird's....or Coltrane's.

[Pharaohrock]

Why do people have to get so defensive when their background for playing this music is called into question? I think Jazzypaul is falling prey to some serious over-romanticizing of the lives of jazz musicians, but andrea is taking the suburban commentary too hard in any event.

In principle, I agree with Bird's notion "if you don't live it..." but I don't see where the question of just what kind of "living it" is so easily disposed of....the "jazz life" is a myth and an outdated one at that.

How to "live it" then according to least common denominators that I see: PLAY a whole helluva lot and INTERACT with other musicians, PUSH oneself vigorously, and most importantly- whatever you do, do with passion and conviction. If you fall in love, fall head over heels in love.....if you get into eastern mysticism, go whole hog into it. In short, the only thing that a suburban background may handicap is thinking less in terms of regulating one's behavior according to some sense of what is "moderate". Moderate can just be half-assed, so therefore you gotta learn to let it go and let it loose.

[jazzypaul]

I didn't think I was over-romanticizing...

This is the flipside to what I was saying as well...How do you know true joy and the ability to articulate that without knowing true pain, and how to articulate that as well? (I just re-read Brave New World not too long ago, does it show? hahahaha) I'm not saying live the life of a junkie, or you must know incredible amounts of sorrow to be able to play well. What I thought I was getting at is that no matter what, you have to go out and live life in between practice sessions and listening sessions. Go out and get something out of life. My shot on suburban kids was simply because they're the ones whose stories start off with, "and this one time at band camp..." or "on the first day of my summer vacation, I went, to go look for a job. Then I hung out in front of the drug store." And as much as I don't want to hear them verbalize that, I REALLY don't want to hear them play it. Yeah, play changes, learn the tunes, interact with people(!!!), but most importantly, have something to tell me about. Because I want to hear it. Crazy thing is, all of these people telling me I'm wrong have yet to tell me their stories.

[PiousBionicus]

Your background does not affect your sound at all, in my opinion. Growing up in the suburbs, having an easy life with no real problems will not make a difference to your sound. The only factor that truely makes a difference is your love for the music.

A pianist who really loves and enjoys the music will put all his feelings and emotions into playing. If he were to play with another pianist who was just in it for the money, it is obvious who is going to sound better, regardless of talent (to a certain extent) and regardless of their upbringing.

I have been brought up in a middle-class family living in the suburbs, my childhood has been easy (I'm only 16 so I'm actually still in my childhood), yet that has not affected my style. I play in a trio with a 15-year-old pianist who has had much the same upbringing, and in my opinion he is fantastic and extremely capable of being as good as the greats like Oscar Peterson who had a rough childhood. If he was to compete against someone who had years more experience but does not enjoy the music, he would come across the better pianist.

The saxophonist in our trio, however, does not feel the same way about the music as the pianist and I do. He is much more into Rock 'n' Roll, Rhythm 'n' Blues and Boogie Woogie, and would much rather play that style of music. As a result, it shows when playing jazz; he does not play as well.

There are other small factors which do alter one's sound - such as influences and mood - but it is the enjoyment that they get out of playing music which really makes them stand out, not how interesting their life has been.

[Pharaohrock]

suburbs vs. the ghetto- man, this rhetoric is so dated. as is "you gotta have the blues"; i agree with the last post adamantly that what matters most far and away, IS the passion one has for the music.

Someone needs to do a comprehensive sociological survey and see just how few jazz musicians come from the inner city or even historical black neighborhoods anymore. Jason Moran??? He's a suburban kid from head to toe. Now Paul, does he have more validity as a "suburban" kid though because he's black?? Can you take the black kid out of the city but not the city out of the black kid?

Jim Rotondi is from Butte, Montana. cat is pretty downright pretty bland personally but plays with a lot more intensity and imagination than many trumpet players /who may be having struggles with the devil and pained romances.

This scene today has very little to do with sociology. The least common denominator today is probably having parents who are reasonably educated/cultured enough to have some jazz in their record collection. This music is certainly not part of the common culture anymore, that's for damn sure..

[Pharaohrock]

-i think people are always racking their brains trying to figure out "what's wrong" with the music today and why we don't seem to be in the midst of any great movements or genius musicians. people want to pin the answer to some sociological/extramusical reason instead of actually considering whether we've just reached a stage where there's so much that has been said, that......it's almost impossible to be completely original anymore.

if only the next thelonious monk could somehow escape the ghetto and then bless us jazz fans with his/her gifts......right?

i don't think so. there is no messiah to wait on. we have a poly-stylistic scene today that embraces eclectic approaches to the music, and concerns itself more with discreet modifications to the existing vocabulary, than on anybody really standing out.

[champjams]

Pious - I absolutely agree with you! It is the love for the music that makes a player have the potential. Everyone wants to point out a simplistic reason for "what's wrong", but you know the simple fact is - if you can't play Jazz with feeling and do it right, it's just because you haven't worked hard enough. There is no miracle recipe for the perfect innovative Jazz musician. You either work at it and get it, or you don't.

No matter where a person is from, if he surrounds himself with Bird and Monk, etc. then he has the potential to be a baddass.

[jazzypaul]

It's amazing how everyone has hung on one little tidbit of what I said while ignoring the larger part of what I have said in order to make themselves feel like they're proving something in their argument. If you love this music and you want to play it -- then great! You'll be able to play it. Technically. Again, though, no one has mentioned anyone, save for Pharoahrock's mentioning of Jason Moran, who is an AMAZING piano player who seems very well read and very well studied, that is saying anything unique. THE STORY THAT YOU TELL WHEN YOU'RE PLAYING. Again, more people jump up and down talking about how you can be an astounding player able to outswing Oscar Peterson by just practicing. Of course, practicing is 75-80% of the game. And, on the physical level of being able to play dotted 8th notes, you may very well be right. But WHAT ARE YOU SAYING TO ME? Are you expressing eastern philosophy like Chick Corea on Now He Sings, Now He Sobs? Are you on a search for something like Trane? Are you making music that sounds like the very essense of life around you like Duke? Or are you just playing the Bird and Monk licks that you heard on a record because you now have the potential to be a badass? As a drummer, I can pull out all of the Elvin Jones licks no problem. But I will never be as good as him because I didn't THINK of that stuff. I imitate it. You can imitate Bird and play his stuff. But it takes playing your experiences and playing your story to say something different and personal. So, until you tell me your story, quit telling me how wrong I am. When you can tell me what differentiates you from the greats and how you may possibly be able to out play them because of your different spin on the instrument, then you can tell me I'm wrong.

[champjams]

Imitation --> Assimilation --> Innovation

BTW, I think I have already this - someone's story, someone's life, that comes out when they play. NO ONE can play Bird licks and sound exactly like Bird, because they're not Bird. But, first you must copy his licks, then you must take them into your own playing (and that is about as far as anyone will ever get) and then you can TRY to innovate. Not every great Jazz musician has been innovative; however this doesn't mean they're not expressing something unique! Their VERY LIVES are unique! You live it, and it comes out of your horn. Do you think that some people's lives are just "not good enough" to be expressed in music? If a person is driven to play Jazz, and they strive for it and practice and devote their lives to it, then their story will probably be pretty interesting and beautiful.

Also, I didn't know that Jazz musicians were supposed to be trying to "outplay" the greats...? When I became involved in this music, it was to perpetuate the beauty of Jazz. To continue the art form. By your standard, is this considered an invalid reason for playing?

Paul - Did you happen to really address my comments in full???

[Pharaohrock]

Paul, I still think you're romanticizing musicians of the past too much- you're making the argument that because someone was into eastern mysticism or had some lost love, that this thereby informed the shape their music in some great way. The reality is all we can do is make conjectures, and not very good ones at that.

And consider the converse proposition, THAT bad life choices should lead to bad music.....Look man, Chick Corea is a fantastic creative musician, but his choice of religion (Scientology) makes me seriously question how he could be so creative and independent-minded after all. Scientology is a cult for pseudo-intellectual sheep. Anyone who can buy into Ron Hubbard's baloney spirituality and play music as hip as Corea's must be quite schizoid in my mind.

That whole "Eastern mysticism" thing is a big cliche anyway. For most cats, this was just a passing fancy and it only really affected a few in any substantive way.

In any event, I agree with Bird's dictum of "if you don't live it..." but the problem that I see both in Paul's rhetoric and generally in jazz discourse is that this notion is LOADED in terms of its potential content. Living a hard life, going on a spiritual quest, having failed romances, being an "outcast" and dealing with that adversity.....these are ACCEPTABLE forms of experience whereas living a middle-class life in which one is a responsible and loving parent, is involved with local politics, and serves in the National guard on weekends, would be considered totally un-hip. Going against the antisocial grain of this music......Even though you can bet that person has plenty of life experiences just as unique and enlightening about humanity as having some hoary nights or being into some kind of exotic religion.

So in other words, the Bird dictum has inspired a certain amount of political correctness in how a jazz musician is supposed to live, and what kinds of experiences are deemed valid in terms of "living it."

[jazzypaul]

1) Champjams --

All I am saying is that personality, experience and life itself makes up a large portion of this music. In rock you can say "I wanna rock out" and try to sound like your favorite band and convey whatever it is that you want to say, and that's that. The same thing can be said for country, gospel, R&B, rap, classical, blues, celtic music, et cetera, et cetera et cetera. Jazz, on the other hand, is different. Being that it is an improvisational music, it is the music of what I am, what you are, what we all are right at this very moment. If I walk into a gig pissed off at the world, I'm gonna sound different than if I walk into that same gig happy. If I walk into that gig having just looked at Picasso's paintings all day, I will approach the music differently than if I had spent all day looking at Anne Geddes photographs. These are all things that will shape the way we play, unless of course we just hit the bandstand spouting licks all night. I hope and pray to God that I am certainly not one of those that would feel the need to do nothing but spout licks. But when you don't have that story to tell that says "I feel like skipping through daisies all day" or "I'm gonna kill the next chump that requests Body & Soul" all you CAN do is spout licks. And that's just depressing. I've played with people like that. They're amazing technicians. But they don't have a story, and while all of the musicians tend to say "wow, that cat's got a lot of chops," nobody in the place is paying them much mind because they're not engaging an audience, they're not playing to pull people in, they're not telling a story. They're playing licks. It is players like that who WILL kill off this music. This is why I'm saying, players have to be able to tell a story. And maybe the middle class suburban kids can tell a good story. But none of you have told me what your story is yet. So I doubt it. But I bet you can spout off everything in the Charlie Parker omnibook. That makes you an excellent reader. What's there that's making you an excellent player?

Pharoahrock --

Am I romanticizing the old cats? You bet your ass I am. For these guys it was "practice your scales, your chords, work out your stuff and get out there and play!" These guys were influenced by Bird, Diz, Bud, Thelonious and the rest, but they didn't keep their noses buried in books trying to copy everyone else's licks. They went out and played. They showed people their hearts and souls on stage and on record, and they made music which people still listen to and still glean things from 35,40, 50 and 60 years later. And the guys who listen to this stuff a lot don't talk about Lee Morgan playing be-bop (which he did very well) they talk about Lee Morgan playing Mr. Kenyatta and how deep his playing is. A few of my buddies and myself at one point agreed that the single greatest moment in the last 50 years of jazz music was the interaction between Freddie Hubbard and Elvin on Witch Hunt on Wayne Shorter's Speak No Evil. Why? Was it technically amazing stuff? NO! But Freddie's definitely trying to say something. These days, there ARE guys who are saying something with their music: Greg Osby, Jason Moran, Brad Mehldau, Christian McBride, Seamus Blake, Chris Potter, Frank Catalano, etc. And these guys put in their time studying, to be sure. But these guys are all out living their lives and putting that in their music. Why is this such a hotly contested issue? Go out and live, let it shape your music, and then play!! Play a lot!

As for the stuff about Chick Corea: Inspiration comes in all shapes and sizes. If it works for Chick, and it says something to him, and it inspires him, who am I to say otherwise?

[andreimatorin]

"So, until you tell me your story, quit telling me how wrong I am. When you can tell me what differentiates you from the greats and how you may possibly be able to out play them because of your different spin on the instrument, then you can tell me I'm wrong."

Why should anybody have to tell you our story? Are we on trial? Are you gonna tell us whether we have potential to be great or not? What about you and your story paul? All we know is that you play in a death metal band and can play elvin jones licks... Is that your story and does that determine your competence as a jazz musician? If I told you the stories of 10 jazz musicians would you be able to pick out the "best" one every time? I assume not, cause that facade of the most interesting story is most often actually very boring and artificial... Who really wants to go see 8 mile (w/ eminem). Shouldn't it be an interesting story though? It probably talks about the hardships of living in the ghetto and making it through. I dont know maybe you do. But, often times, the really interesting stories are the more subtle ones... There can be tensions in stories without much physical actions. One could sit at his computer playing video games all day for years on end and actually have an interesting, more subtle, psychological story to tell.

We all have something to say. Our passion for music is what determines how we tell our story and not what story we have to tell. There are plenty of "musicians" rapping about how hard they have it, and how hard life is in the ghetto, raping about how they're gang is great and how they like money and sex. That doesn't make their story interesting. That's the normal american standard for a story, that's the normal western standard for a story (in your face moral). Stories can have deeper more intellectual levels too. and most of the time, those are the more intersting stories.

what i'm trying to say is things are so black and white... boring suburban kid=no story/ born in a family w/ troubles kid=great story. this is an exaggeration of what u said but there is still some truth in it. Great stories are within all of us, the question is whether we are willing to open ourselves wide enough and become vulnerable. Passion for music = willing to expose urself and become vulnerable. IMO :)

[Pharaohrock]

All of this "story" stuff IS getting trifling. I care about the music and what that sounds like on its own terms.....stories are desired to fill up books for fans to consume. Music exists as a continuum of a sonic language....for me it's not about individualism because what musicians are involved with is so much larger than themselves. Too many possibilities.....it's confounding....We interpret Coltrane as an individualist even though I think he was far more of the "I am a vessel of change" mindset. Miles was an egotist, and that's why he hit a wall.

[jazzypaul]

"All we know is that you play in a death metal band and can play elvin jones licks... "

I never said I play in a death metal band. The closest I ever came to saying anything of the sort was mentioning that my freebop quartet plays with the intensity of a death metal band. (since we do Metallica and Slayer tunes and make them swing, it only makes sense...)

As for the other thing that you were saying, that maybe the kid playing video games all of the time might have something interesting to say, you know, you may be right. All I said was that it is doubtful.

THE main point that I am trying to make is that far too many people try to make it on chops and imitation alone. I've seen it, I've heard it, I've played with it, and man, does it suck. If anything, I'm trying to say, "MAKE SURE YOU PLAY YOUR STORY!" or, to not ruffle Pharoahrock's feathers, "MAKE SURE YOUR PLAYING SAYS SOMETHING OTHER THAN I JUST LISTENED TO SOME SKUNK FUNK 14 TIMES IN A ROW!" In my playing I've noticed this: suburban upper class kid who plays Play Station in every moment not spent studying or practicing -- imitates favorite player, and either plays as fast as he can on every tune, or plays substitution upon substitution on every tune. kid who's been around the block far too young, but luckily has picked up an instrument: sounds derivative of favorite artist, uses time, space, subs and speed to create tension, and gets pissed off if something -- even the ballads, does not creat a cold sweat in the audience. This has been my personal experience playing with people. As also mentioned before, I WOULD LOVE MORE THAN ANYTHING TO BE PROVED WRONG.

[Pharaohrock]

Why do you think you would ruffle my feathers? I'm cool now.

[champjams]

Paul - I do not have to validate myself to you.

I think that underneath all the "stories" and all the "hardships" and "computer games" or whatever, it all comes down to one thing : the music. People who play Jazz play it because it is in them, do you think that Jazz musicians play for the money or the fame? The love of this music, that is what makes their story beautiful. Not only the love for it, but the dedication - the sacrifice one has to make to achieve the ability to truly "say" something in this artform - that is what makes a person sound beautiful. That is what gives them a "story."

People don't become Jazz musicians if they don't have something to say. I don't mean flavor of the month people like Wynton or Diana Krall or the kids who play in a "Jazz" band in college....I mean people who truly dedicate themselves to the perpetuation of Jazz music. Those are the people who have something to say.

The musician's life exists for the music, and the music exists for the musician's life. They are inseperable.

[jazzypaul]

Yeah, and I've heard people "dedicate" themselves to this music and play nothing but 16th notes and subs. Jazz is the only music where they can do that and not be accused of wanking -- so they think. Hank Mobley was dedicated to this music, Stanley Turrentine was dedicated to this music, Herbie Hancock is dedicated to this music and Jason Moran is dedicated to this music. And they all tell stories when they're playing. You're quick to knock Wynton and Diana, but Diana is a nice, and very competent piano player, and your quip about Wynton tells me that you never heard his best work.

You're right, you don't have to validate yourself to me. Not by a long shot. But you're trying to anyway, and if nothing else, that's pretty darned amusing.

[Pharaohrock]

Stop squabbling you two. This forum is barely a month old and we don't need to have designated foes and enemies just yet....

[PiousBionicus]

Paul, if people are dedicated to their playing, you will be able to tell. So they might not be the most gifted jazz musician, but if they are dedicated and--more importantly--enjoy playing, you will always be able to hear their potential. It's their dedication and the feeling they put into their music that really makes them stand out.

You've got it all wrong, you don't need to have had an interesting life to be able to sound good. Maybe in some cases, upper-class kids haven't sounded as good as kids with rougher backgrounds, but definitely not in all cases. I disagree with your theory about having a story to tell through your music. Music is a way of expressing your inner feelings, not telling a story--in my opinion.

Also, I can't understand when you say immitating a favourite player is a bad thing. Is that not how we learn? I have certainly learnt a lot by immitating techniques used by other drummers I have seen. I don't rely solely on copying these drummers--I do have my own sound-- but I learn a lot from them so I don't think immitating your favourite drummers is so much of a bad thing.

Of course you are fully entitled to your own opinion but, as this is a discussions forum, I am discussing.

[jazzypaul]

First off, insofar as dedication goes, you're right, if people are dedicated, I can tell. But dedicated to what? To showing off their chops and proving to me that they can play really fast and that they did their theory homework? Or, to put it this way, who's more fun to listen to, Al DiMeola or Grant Green? They're both equally dedicated (or were) to playing their music. But Grant sounds great on everything from Be-Bop to Funk, because he sounds like he's trying to relate something, and he always sounds like him. Al DiMeola plays things that make guitarists drool, because it gives them new things to practice. I don't know an Al DiMeola fan that isn't a guitarist.

Or as a fellow drummer, you can relate here: how many non drummers dig Terry Bozzio? Chops for chops sake, and no expression and no story telling. But damn, I'd kill for his chops...

But isn't expressing your innermost feelings telling a story anyway? If your innermost feelings are love and happiness, aren't you then going to be expressing that, and in doing so, expressing a story of sorts? It's two different ways of saying the same thing. My shots are directed towards those who don't even do that. And I'm speaking from experience. And as I've said before, I would love to be proven wrong. And, by looking at a Chris Potter or a Jason Moran, I'd have to say that those are probably two cases where I HAVE been proven wrong. Ellington also grew up in a middle class situation, but there has also never been a better case of someone telling stories when he plays than Ellington. Which is what I'm getting at. Sounding like what you are, where you've been, what you do. And if your story is interesting, then your playing will be interesting.

As for imitating, I am referring to being on the bandstand. Yes, I have spent many hours in my practice room trying to perfect Blakey's press rolls, Tony's use of the swiss triplet, Elvin's rolling triplets, A.T.'s across the kit fills, Joe Chamber's breaking up of the beat, etc ad nauseum. But I try to sound like ME on the bandstand. People have already heard Philly Joe. Why do they want to hear someone who sounds like Philly Joe? Sound derivative of Philly Joe, and build upon it. There's a major difference there.

[drummerboy]

If anyone's still reading this thread - I don't think it's that old - this topic interested me at first, but kind of made me sick after awhile. Economics sure do have something to do with the yewts choosing careers in e-whatever, but what has happened, IMHO, is that in some ways jazz sort of collapsed under it's own weight for awhile there.

Through the 60s, even part of the 70s, it was very common to hear instrumental-based music on the radio, even with the convergence of rock n' roll, etc. What did "jazz" give to the masses to sustain interest in the art form? Short answer: not much. Now, before you jump on me, I'm obviously speaking in generalities, but it seems to me that after "Bitches Brew" hit, the jazz world splintered. Many people took up the new "direction," and trad jazz/bop got relegated to the back burner.

I enjoy Mahavishnu, RTF, etc, but the fact remains that there was a lot of self-absorbed, self-important wanking going on in the early '70s - all about the chops and scales/modes. Nothing really too inspiring for the average listener who's more concerned about a good melody or tune rather than who could hit the paraddidle or mixolodian on 'Sweet Nectar of the Gods.'

But, I believe there's hope because the trend has been for "jazz" as most people know it to be making a comeback. Even "smooth jazz", which most of us I think would tend to frown upon plays a role. It's all about getting "jazz" BACK into the vernacular. A certain percentage of people will listen to smooth jazz, for example, and then decide, hey - what else is out there? Who's this Wynton Marsalis dude? Who exactly is "Cannonball?" So, while I don't dig the format, I like the exposure.

And that's the key. Most of the threads in this post relate to the "suburban" issue, and teeters dangerously close to the elitist attitude that has all but shut down the growth of classical/symphonic music in this country. And it's sad, I don't care what Paul says, Jazz is NO DIFFERENT than rock, rap, soul ,etc. It's ALL music, just a different flavor. There's good and bad in all, and just because jazz might be (in general) more "improvisational" does not necessarily mean there's more "feeling" in it than a rock tune. In fact, I personally take offense at that. I whole-heartedly admit that I'm primarily a rock drummer, and from what I've been told a pretty good one. NOT GREAT, but pretty good.

In fact, I feel a bit like Salieri from "Amadeus," able to recognize greatness but unable to create it. This is because try as I might - and I've studied for years, played in ensembles, etc - I still can not elevate my jazz playing much beyond "bad."

But I bring my "A" game to each and every performance. I try subtle things within the context of each song to support and give life to the music. I breathe through my phrases, and where possible, mix up my playing.

Now, in theory at least is this not what Miles, Page, Coltrane, etc have done with their playing? I'm not saying I'm even in the same universe as these monsters, but what I am saying is that regardless of style/setting, a true musician gives it their all and leaves nothing. And THAT has nothing to do with the suburbs or city. Shame on anyone who feels they have to perpetuate the horrible enigma of jazz as 'Elitist'. It's so wrong and stupid.

[jazzypaul]

wow, such a high percentage of drummers on this thread! Greetings fellow percussionists.

Drummerboy --

1) Yes, you are right, rock, rap, soul, jazz, classical and bluegrass are all forms of music. To say they are no different, however, is a dangerous idea. All of these musics are all great, when played with verve and panache; however, Rock music, for all of its posturing, is a very conservative music. It functions best over one time signature (4/4) largely eschews improvisation in its purest form, (when it becomes a fusion with other styles, in the case of Hendrix or Cream or Phish, that is another issue) and due to the refusal of even many of the "name" players in rock to learn how to play their instruments properly, we see a lack of truly interesting harmonic movement in Rock. These all make for a very constricting music. The reason that many rock drummers do not fare well in the world of jazz is the same reason why classical players do not fare well either: the freedom is too much for them. And why? Because they are different types of music. And while I will never say that Jazz is "better" than any other music (I love my Steely Dan, Stevie Wonder and Metallica albums way too much) I will say that it takes a more technically advanced player as well as a different kind of player to play jazz. However, if it makes you feel any better, at this point, when I play rock, I sound strictly like a Bonham clone. Not a bad guy to clone, for sure, but it never gets beyond that. And that's not a very good feeling.

2) Might you want to show me exactly where I said that all players that come from the city are better than all players that come from the suburbs? 99% of what I said came from the idea that jazz players should be able to tell a story when they play. Which brings me to another thought that could have been listed above. Say I sit in with local rock band and we play Guerilla Radio by Rage Against The Machine. There is only one way to sound on that song. I am stuck sounding pissed, even if I just hooked up with Heather Locklear, got handed the keys to a brand new Maserati, and was sold a beautiful Brownstone in pristine condition in downtown Manhattan for $25. I still HAVE to sound angry on that Rage Against the Machine tune, because the song dictates it. On the other hand, if you are a talented jazz musician and have the ability to tell a story when you play, you can get to the gig, and play Willow Weep for Me. You can play it like a blues because your car broke down and things suck, you can play it bouncy and happy because said rendezvous with Heather Locklear just payed off in spades in between sets in the green room. You can play it wistfully, hoping for an old lover to come back, etc, etc, etc. Playing with everything you've got, if you are at the top of your game, will include telling those stories. Mentioning that Miles and Trane did that is pretty much like remarking that water is indeed wet. However, if you're not at the top of your game, playing everything you've got can often times be playing nothing but scales. I don't want to hear that, and I question anyone that does, outside of said wanker's mom and dad. That's not being elitist. That's simply saying that I have to hear enough bad music already. I don't want to hear any more than I have to.

[drummerboy]

Paul, without surfing through all the threads, you did make a reference towards suburbanites/soccer moms etc not being able to make interesting music or something with a story you wish to hear. I intrinsically understand what you're saying, but can't agree with it because even under those circumstances, if someone is inspired, has the technical skills and is creative, then they can work wonders. How about the Marsalis boys? Not exactly pulled from the ghetto, yet they seem to have done quite well.

Good call on Rage, but I disagree. There isn't ONE way to play that song. If you're simply going to crank out the hits, and just "cover" the song, fine, go ahead. But you could easily re-arrange it, or mix it up into a reggae tune or whatever just to try something different. Is there only "one" way to play My Funny Valentine?

And, I respectfully reject your assertion that rock is "confining," like anything else you get out of it what you put in it. To say that it sounds best in 4/4 time is highly subjective; besides, the overwhelming majority of "jazz" is in the same time signature! In fact, I think rock in some ways allows more freedom. You don't see much sampling, electronics, or innovative instrumentation in "jazz." Again, a horrible generalization, but the "jazz" most people think of is typically a trio, quartet, maybe big band.

Listen to Radiohead, Beck, Flaming Lips, etc - how have they been "constrained?" Again, not saying there isn't loads of crap on the radio - far from it, there's an overwhelming preponderence of it. But it's dangerous to make blanket statements and dog a specific genre.

And the problem I think I have with playing jazz at least respectably isn't chops. It's feel. I tend to play pretty busy in my rock stuff, and have always been drawn to guys like Blakey. But he's not "busy," he's "engaged," if you take my meaning, and I have not been real successful at making the jump. Sigh... I think sometimes either you got or you don't. I guess it could be worse, my dad's a CPA, at least I didn't get that !!

[jazzypaul]

I always love me a new debate...

Okay, let's put the suburban player/urban player thing to bed. Champjams, andre, Pious and drummerboy have helped me to see the light. If you are a suburban horn player, you can pull out Charlie Parker lines in your sleep, and even monsters like Michael Brecker will shudder in your presence. If you are a suburban piano player, Oscar Peterson should come over to your house to tell you how much you swing, because you can make your entire block seasick. Bass players, fear not. You have Jaco's chops, NHOP's taste and Ron Carter's sound. and drummers, you swing in such a manner that Philly Joe would have handed you the gig in Miles' 1950's quintet out of deference to your greatness. Tony Williams has nothing on your soloing ideas and your comping makes you sound like you have six arms, effectively being able to out comp Elvin by 33%. I tip my hat to you, the suburban jazz players of the world. I have seen the light, and I thank you.

Now, for something completely different...

As for why I said what I said about the Rage tune. Done in a rock or pop style, that song is inherently aggresive. There is no getting out of it. Doing it as a reggae song would just be doing an aggressive reggae song. Doing it as a calypso would give you an angry calypso. Certainly far more angry than the average calypso song containing scary big black tarantulas. Hell, having just thought it out, it would even make for a pretty aggressive polka! Much Yes, you could get Pat Boone to sing it with the Lawrence Welk swingers and take all of the life out of it, but then you take the character out of the song as well. This is to say, that, of course, there are great rock/pop songs that most certainly hold up under the scrutiny of a rearrangement. But, leading a band that does exactly that: taking pop tunes and turning them into Free-Bop, I can tell you, there are not nearly as many tunes that hold up as you would think.

Don't see much sampling, electronics or innovative instrumentation in jazz? check these guys out...

St. Germain
Arthur Blythe
Medeski, Martin & Wood
Soulive
Zony Mash
John Zorn
Brand New Heavies
Emporers New Clothes
Mofro
Galactic
Liquid Soul
John Scofield
Bill Frisell
Pat Metheny Group
Russell Gunn & Ethnomusicology
Buckshot LeFonque
Tha Roots
Christian McBride
Brad Mehldau (played his piano with a whammy bar!)

the list goes on and on and on...

And I said rock sounds most comfortable in 4/4 time. Most rock in 6/8 sounds like it's ready to burst back into a 4/4 groove. Zeppelin could rock out in 7/4, and the Dead could play convincingly in 15/4, but it's the exception, not the rule. If nothing else, jazz is polyrhythmic at all times. 4/4 may be the initial pulse, but it is the broken triplet, or the 3 against 2 concept that pushes it along and makes it swing. And remember, the rock that most people think of are not the Radioheads, the Becks and the Flaming Lips of the world. (In A Priest Driven Ambulance is a damn cool record, by the way) Radiohead most definitely has some interesting things to say. And I think it's no coincedence that a lot of jazz groups are starting to play their music. And while they're the cutting edge of rock music, they're hardly the status quo.

[drummerboy]

That's the danger in speaking in generalities... I know there's plenty of jazz groups incorporating samples/electronics, I was just trying to point out that it's not the "norm" - whatever the hell that means! I don't quite get the whole Medeski thing, doesn't do much for me, but there's plenty of other great names on your list. To each their own, I guess. BTW, if you don't own it already, check out "Bass Desires" by Marc Johnson, it's got Scofield on it and the great Peter Erskine, it's a tremendous disc. And speaking of tremendous drummers... Mile's "Water Babies" has recently been released on CD; while many critics have panned it as sort of "fulfiling" his recording obligations at the time, I feel there's ALWAYS room for some Williams in my collection!

[Pharaohrock]

I recently picked up Herbie Hancock's Future 2 Future DVD and was impressed by the youthful audience and their often ecstatic reaction to his music. Is this just some hip-retro thing like "yeah, the guy from Rockit" or do you think (for those of you familiar with this music) that it was the music itself? Certainly having a turntablist on board is going to resonate with young folk. Ditto the very hip lights show.

BTW, I urge you to pick up this DVD. The best example of an "DVD album", where you have the same music on the cd but with a whole lot more in the way of visual stimulation. The video work is excellent and the atmosphere of the whole gig (at Knitting Factory, LA) is just great...

[jazzypaul]

just wanted to bring this one back to the top, now that we have more people here to chime in...

[jonathanjazz]

Gee how far can a thread title wander...

NEW CONTENT
My wife and I are non jazz musicians (her classical, me early music). I wandered into tech administration so I hardly play but she still does. My wife took a stab at jazz but couldn't change her thinking.

Eight years ago we had a son, Jonathan (my alias is his nickname). Just before he was three, he started on Suzuki violin. At four, he seemed to have taught himself a slide, and then started rhythmic improv on "Bei Mist Du Shein". By five, we added a few jazz standards to see what would happen. His teacher sent the now five year old to see Andy Stein. Andy said go learn second position and some scales. One thing led to another so he is now playing at two jazz festivals at the ripe old age of eight and gigs regularly in and around NYC (www.jonathanjazz.com (http://www.jonathanjazz.com) ).

It seems that despite being a white kid, growing up in a middle class NYC suburb he will have a shot at a career (he might still be an accountant...) And when he plays Summertime or Black and Blue he does move the audience with his soul. For Jonathan, his "artistic" soul comes out enough in his playing that he can emote without living long enough or in aparticular situation to have "experienced" what he is singing about. Now that is probably just the born musician finding a voice in jazz. If he can make it into a career, great. So the debate of urban vs rural, or even can white guys really swing, falls flat with me. If someone has a jazz soul, jazz will win out.

Now while Jonathan does indeed have more than his fair share of talent we regularly entice new kids his age to take a cut at blues improv and sometimes a bit more (jonathan arranged Summertime for his classical quartet). These kids run the gamut of inner city to suburb, poor to rich. Some kids reported that they had never actually touched or even heard a violin until he played at their day camp. All his schools (music and academic) have been open to introducing jazz and improvised violin to the other students, though they may not always have enough money for actual workshops, masterclasses or lessons. Programs such as ASTA, IAJE and Opus 118 all have targeted young audiences for hands on jazz and improv. Middle school jazz is too late in my opinion.

I think substantive exposure is the key to getting youth interested in jazz as either a consumer or as a performer (the world needs both). It becomes the responsibility of musicians (like my son) and folks with a desire (like my wife and myself) to provide time or funds to get jazz out there to younger and younger audiences.

Jim (proud father and ersatz roadie)

[jzzdrummerMA]

I only read the 1st few replies and fast forwarded thru the rest:

I like jazz in the underground- not in the mainstream. If you market jazz like you market blink182 you start getting 11 year olds girls in skimpy short skirts asking you to sign their boobs.

Jazz is not about the money, so those who make it in jazz have to be completely committed, and it stays a FINE ART for those who have taken so much of their lives to try and improve and perfect their art.

It takes a special mind to appreciate jazz, an even more special mind to play and perform jazz and an incredible work ethic to be any good at it, i am 17 and have the interest and the playing ability, its just the work ethic that kills me sometimes...

i say let americas youth drift to whatever music they will, and let jazz stay on the side for people to discover if they have the will .

[jzzdrummerMA]

I only read the 1st few replies and fast forwarded thru the rest:

I like jazz in the underground- not in the mainstream. If you market jazz like you market blink182 you start getting 11 year olds girls in skimpy short skirts asking you to sign their boobs.

Jazz is not about the money, so those who make it in jazz have to be completely committed, and it stays a FINE ART for those who have taken so much of their lives to try and improve and perfect their art.

It takes a special mind to appreciate jazz, an even more special mind to play and perform jazz and an incredible work ethic to be any good at it, i am 17 and have the interest and the playing ability, its just the work ethic that kills me sometimes...

i say let americas youth drift to whatever music they will, and let jazz stay on the side for people to discover if they have the will .

[John Tapscott]

My comment is quite basic. I think we should be careful about deliberately trying to attract people to a career in jazz. It's a pretty tough life and before anyone goes into it they would need to know the upside and the downside. I believe it will happen for those for whom it's supposed to happen. They'll hear or discover the music somewhere and it will strike them that that's the way they're supposed to go. Maybe the best thing to do is make sure that our libraries have plenty of jazz recordings so that the young people can discover the music for themselves. I know a brilliant 10 year old pianist who of course, is now learning the classics. I think it would be great if she were to hear some Tatum, Peterson, Powell and Evans discs somewhere down the line. I would gladly give her the discs if she wanted them. But I would be very hesitant about suggesting a career in jazz to her or anyone else.

[solarjazzband]

Please read this, otherwise I've typed so much for nothin' ;)

I'm one of the younger jazzfans too, I'm 16 years old. At my school I've 'referred' already 4 guys into jazz! I began because my father listened, and so I just got to understand it since 3 years.

But now I'm also busy with 'teaching' people it. I got a drummer into jazz, who is a great 16 year old jazzdrummer now! And I referred another guitarist (I play also guitar) and another drummer, and some other guys. You have to teach them man! Everytime telling what jazz is about, and let them hear anything. In the beginning they won't understand anything from it, and when you're giving up, they're going to buy some albums themselves!! Well, that's great, I've experienced it a few times...

So it would be hard to learn all the younger people to listen to jazz, so there must be another way. And the only way is: the media. Only the TV (because that's the youth' goal, and life), has to send more jazz. But these days it's only hip-hop etc.

So keep hoping the TV and radio will sometimes go more into jazz!

[El Gaucho]

Originally posted by jazzypaul
Not at all, Coltrane obviously practiced constantly, but if you don't think Coltrane had some serious stories to tell, you're completely mistaken. When you play, if you're not a total hack, you play the sound of you. If the sound of you is the sound of someone who has seen pain (which Coltrane had) or the sound of someone who is searching for something deeply spiritual to say (which Coltrane was) or the sound of someone deeply in love with life, humanity and God (which Coltrane was) then that will come out. Listen to Giant Steps and listen to his solo. That is the sound of someone who has burst free from the shackles of drug addiction who is now free to roam. That solo says an awful lot for a tune that isn't even 6 minutes long. Listen to his solo on My Favorite Things from Newport '63. Again, sounds like a man searching, quite possibly, and possibly somewhat futily, for his favorite things. But still, I hear Coltrane, and I hear a man who has lived and is telling me a story.

Now, if the sound of you is, as I have previously stated, the sound of sipping Capri Suns while playing Tekken Fighter on the play station waiting for mom to pick you up for soccer practice, then that's what you're going to sound like. If you spend your life listening to Coltrane CD's, great, you may pick up a couple of his tricks, but you won't have his motivation. Listening is a HUGE part of it. Practicing is an EVEN BIGGER part of it. But, once again, quoting Bird, If you don't LIVE it, it won't come out of your horn.

This isn't to say that you won't be able to play scales at light speed, or play interesting subs or have perfect time. I don't know you, you may be able to do all of these things. But what's there to make you soulful like Cannonball, funky like Eddie Harris, searingly meaningful like Trane, Tense like Bud Powell, quirky like Monk, or scary like Mingus? Without having lived their lives, they all would have still been virtuoso musicians. They had the chops, they put in the time, they paid their dues. But it was the stuff that happened in between that shaped their conception of the music.

The reason that the music stopped growing for a while was because everyone looked to the past without injecting their presents or their futures. Now we're seeing guys putting THEMSELVES into the music. Mehldau's one eclectic dude, and he puts that out there. Redman's growing as a human being, and that's evident. Chris Potter is playing like crazy with everyone that will have him, he's travelled the world, and his last two albums sound like that. Christian McBride is a wonderful, articulate and funny human being that sees jazz as far more than just jazz, and that shows too. Jazz is more exciting now than it had been for a good long time.

Now what I'm saying isn't to slam the kids from the suburbs, it's to say, "what story are you going to tell me?" With your last post, you make my point brutally clear. These days, the kids that are coming up now have been told so many times that it's all about technique that they forget about the story. "who cares about the story, I can rip through Giant Steps!!" Maybe you can. But when was the last time you heard someone rip through Giant Steps in a manner that made you say, "that's as good as Trane!!!"? Never, because people look at Giant Steps as a way to show off their chops. Again, quoting Bird..."Learn everything. Then forget it." What he's saying here is that the idea is to not just learn it, it's to internalize it. Internalizing it means that the chops just flow out, while you're telling your story. (Bruce Lee also held to this maxim when teaching Jeet Kune Do, his variation on Kung Fu)

So, before you criticize again, the more important thing I want to know about is this: What's your story?

Wow, I completely agree with you paul. I am a 17 year old kid from NYC tryin to go off to become a career musician. I listened to blues for years and then progressed to jazz. The Bird quote is unbelievably true, and i believe it is your life experiences that create your musical experiences. What Andre and that other girl from the suburbs are failing to understand, is that when a good musician plays a riff they are not just playing a nice sound. They are playing a feeling, an emotion, a human instinct... I realized this as i matured more, did some real crazy shit and learned about being a man... lemme ask you this, when bird plays, are you just hearing his notes are you hearing his mind? Because he was a perfect example of a musician who could play his thoughts and moods and experiences with amazing poignancy(?spelling?). Music is a form of communication deeper than language, but you still need to have something to say. I have also noticed that most good musicians who have that "feel" on the instrument and swing hard, live with a certain "feel" in their actions, what they say, and how they move.

Sorry, just some next level shit.

BTW @ Champs.... I think you definatly have to try to "outplay" the greats. Granted i can say there is a very small chance that i will consider myself or others will consider me better than Wayne or Herbie or Joe pass, but i still have to thrive to be the best possible musician i can be. I look up to all the greats a huge amount, but i refuse to limit myself to only be as good as them. You think bird just sat around aiming to be as good as the other cats?

[Phil Kelly]

having just spent about 10 or so minutes leafing thru all this ..

My only comment is all of you younger folks who are even considering a career in music ..jazz or otherwise ..need to first get yourself a well rounded education in both music AND the business of music as well ..plus some ancillary training in education and /or another discipline as an insurance policy against future starvation.

No matter how much you all love jazz, keep in mind the vast bulk of America doesn't ..and ..won't .. and never will. The aesthetic perceptive level of a public that prefers eminem , Britney, American Idol, jackass, and other such wonderful paragons of entertainment doesn't have the slightest interest in investing the kind of attention span an appreciation of jazz requires.

You are planning on a career in a very marginalized specialized form of art, that after spending years and years to become proficient on your instrument will discover the work opportunities are rare at best ..and there are a whole SLEW of reall stone killer players already there in line for the few gigs available.

So, whatever you choose to do ..become flexible and versatile in all forms of music as well as jazz, and be prepared to do a lot of gigs that you won't emotionally relate to, but still must perform at a very professional level.

I say all this from a standpoint of a retired pprofessional arranger/ composer who ,after almost 40 years in the business , is now contemplating recording my only jazz project in all those years ..and on my own dime ..( earned from years of writing music that OTHER people wanted ..and paid for ..)

good luck to you all ..

[David Ayers]

To answer the question of this thread, you need to imagine how it would seem, fifty years from now, if someone pasoted a thread somewhere called 'How can younger musicians be attracted to a career in hip-hop'.

Get my drift?

[Phil Kelly]

Originally posted by David Ayers
To answer the question of this thread, you need to imagine how it would seem, fifty years from now, if someone pasoted a thread somewhere called 'How can younger musicians be attracted to a career in hip-hop'.

Get my drift?


not really ..its apples and oranges as far as I' m concerned :

Jazz is an evolving music that ,although marginal in general popularity , does posess a long history and consequent development encompassing many influences ..( including hip hop in a small way )

hip hop is a marginal offshoot of R&B,an urban music fad that even though being marketed as a "life style" as well as a music is still very young, and not likely to have the staying power or flexibility of a larger all encompassing form like jazz ..

So , what was your point ?

[David Ayers]

My point is that dogmatic thinking about jazz obscures the question of what it 'is'.

To simply assert in a grandiose fashion that jazz 'evolves' (as if it were a species with a basically continuous identity, adapting to changing environment) while another style is a 'fad' is simply to make a dogmatic distinction between what you consider real and what merely fashionable.

Jazz was a fad too - 'was', because it is no longer so. There was a large audience base for jazz, a massive audience base for swing, a decent one for bop, a miscellaneous one for free, an ambivalent resurgence for fusion, and, er, since then beery 'collectors' and musos (i'm both, BTW). Oh and sorry in the USA college gradautes, who think it might be a career but discover that its a history, and have to get out there and play something else if they want a real career.

You call hiphop a fad, but when I go to my local record store I see simply the vinyl collection of the future. I won't be the one collecting that stuff, but there are those that will, and hip hop will become a history too, a style of black-branded music that will be taught in colleges while musos recreate it on antique 'turntables' and beery men like me bay for digital reissues. Only it won't be digital, it will be ethereal by then. The academics by the way will be explaining to everyone that hip hop evolved partly out of jazz and blues. Jazz is receding. It's far, far away.

Perennial fashion: Jazz - ?

[Phil Kelly]

sorry ..didn't mean to come off dogmatic about this ..

I must , however, admit a subjective disdain for a form of music I don't care for ..both from a generational standpoint and from a stanpoint of musical craftsmanship. Sampled beats, turntables, and screaming scatological and misogynistic screeds may be some, yea admittedly many younger folks thing, but I find it hard to assign any musical value to the genre.

..and for the record, I love all types of "traditional " R&B stuff ..and have over the length of my working life written far more material of that type ( and other forms of pop music ) than I have so called "jazz" stuff. I definitely opted for "where the money was" in my music career.

you may be correct that 50 years from now, there well may be a vast legacy of rap, hip-hop, house , whatever ..whether or not it is classified as music or a form of urban poetry (?) remains to be seen, I guess.

[Pharaohrock]

As a larger point, I think any kind of vocal/lyric-grounded music genre is inherently limited as far as how much progressive development can occur within that music. The reality with lyrics is that you can't totally get beyond the basic song form, which is musically constricting in the long term.

[Phil Kelly]

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
As a larger point, I think any kind of vocal/lyric-grounded music genre is inherently limited as far as how much progressive development can occur within that music. The reality with lyrics is that you can't totally get beyond the basic song form, which is musically constricting in the long term.


the only problem with this viewpoint is you're essentially dismissing the so called "Great American Song Book"..which in mamy ways is the tabula rasa of the bebop and neo-bop canon . And all that Porter, Gershwin, Arlen, etc stuff WAS lyrically based ..and in a much more sophisticated manner that is the norm now ..albeit phrased in a passe mode of expression.

[David Ayers]

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
As a larger point, I think any kind of vocal/lyric-grounded music genre is inherently limited as far as how much progressive development can occur within that music. The reality with lyrics is that you can't totally get beyond the basic song form, which is musically constricting in the long term.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. With the exception of the orchestral tone painting of Ellington and Kenton, jazz was entirely dependent on the song form except in its late 50s modal and free varieties. Even these at first retained elements of song form.

What you say here seems to imply the old conundrum that jazz is restricted while it is limited to the song form, but may be no longer jazz if it abandons the song form. Jazz was an approach to interpreting song. If you take that away then yes, you are left with improvising to what have you, but no longer with jazz.

As I keep reminding myself, Ellington and Davis rejected the term jazz and claimed to play music. It is worth continuing to think about why they may have done so.

[Phil Kelly]

Originally posted by David Ayers



As I keep reminding myself, Ellington and Davis rejected the term jazz and claimed to play music. It is worth continuing to think about why they may have done so.


the viewpoint expressed above has always been very close to my own viewpoint as well ..both in the areas of listening to and creating music.

[Andy D]

Jazz music continues to evolve and like classical music it has found a new audiance. The blending of techno, dance and pop etc to Jazz is very appealing to many people, who would not go out and but a more 'traditional' Jazz album.

I am not in a position to say if this' blending' of Jazz with other forms of music has any merit, but in many cases I like it and the important thing is that young people like it. I think there is a great deal of musical craftmanship to the sounds created by Dr Dre for example, and from this we have the unique sound that is Eminem!

How can one say that later Miles has any more music craftmenship that St Germain?

Just some thoughts

Regards

Andy D.

[jzzdrummerMA]

Originally posted by Andy D


I am not in a position to say if this' blending' of Jazz with other forms of music has any merit

merit? who are we to say whether experimenting with music deserves "merit" or not. That they succeeded in being heard, and that people are listening, isn't that merit enough?

[Andy D]

That was the point I was trying to make, that merit is a very much a subjective thing and I for one like much of the crossover music.

Some people may not be to keen on this, I have a friend who likes opera, hates all this crossover stuff, in which opera stars make records with pop stars and people buy CD's in which opera stars make pop records.

So he thinks that this has little merit and I guess he is entitled to this view. I agree if people listen to it then it has merit to them, even people I know, who would say they 'hated' Jazz like a little -Dave Brubeck ( Take Five) or Art Blakey (Moanin) for example.

They would find it much harder to listen to John Coltrane or later Miles!

Regards

Andy D.

[hammond x]

how to get younger musicans into a career in jazz music..?
for starters, campaign to have "kind of blue" on the national curriculum, make it compulsory for anyone under the age of 16 to be well versed in turnarounds, tell younger musicians not to play as a career choice, but to play as an art-form, to play because they love the music ...and make it legal to shoot jazz-snobs
..they are what is killing the music by constricting it under tons of rules and regulations and also by living in the past ...the 50's are long gone, get over it ...youngsters don't want to hear that stuff, they need their own generation of new heroes.:mad2:

[solarjazzband]

Let me tell you the situation in Holland.
Since 2 years, everyone at high school, must follow a class (2 hours a week) which is called Culterele Kunstzinnige Vorming (I think it would be translated as Cultural Artistic Forming)(?)

In these lessons, everybody learns about art, and everybody has to visit a few concerts (more alternative concerts), and make a report of that. And many more, so the younger people here really get in touch with the art. Most students think it's bullshit, but still, they get more familiar with the real art...

So it's quite good from our government, to do that. Personally I hope that by that action there will be more artists coming from here, and that more alternative music will be appriciated more. In every big city here there's also a concervatory (for jazz and classical), I think about 15 in the netherlands, and believe me, holland is small :) . So enough opportunity...

But this could be the answer to your question, to have a government that really supports all things that have to do with art (like that happens here), much money is going to art.

Well, are there more places where this happens? I think it's quite good...
(but still, there is nobody from Holland (as far as I know), who has become a really great artist, I hope it will in the future).

[peter rh]

originally posted by hammond x:
"how to get younger musicans into a career in jazz music..?
for starters, campaign to have "kind of blue" on the national curriculum, make it compulsory for anyone under the age of 16 to be well versed in turnarounds, tell younger musicians not to play as a career choice, but to play as an art-form, to play because they love the music ...and make it legal to shoot jazz-snobs
..they are what is killing the music by constricting it under tons of rules and regulations and also by living in the past ...the 50's are long gone, get over it ...youngsters don't want to hear that stuff, they need their own generation of new heroes."

obviously a wind up first post, but KOB was recorded in 1959 which in my book puts it in the 50s!
Does hammond x live in the land of the free?

[hammond x]

nuts... nope, i live in the land of the grey (england) - where any art-form has to be high-brow for it to be taken seriously (will jazz become a style of conservatoire music, with form over content?).
remember that jazz per se was the music of working-class Americans, not the lofty pursuit of intellectuals, which is what it has become today (ooh, jazz... HOW pretentious!).
i'm not saying that it should be dumbed-down, nor am i denying the forms status as a contemporary classical music ...but witness the difference between opera in Italy and in England.
i started out with stan getz as a youngster, i didn't care two whatevers for his status within the jazz world, i luckily didn't have any snooty "expert" to put me down for my choice, i loved his music, that stays with me today, years later, long after the snobs have consumed themselves with their own self-loathing.

KOB was indeed from '59, but it's influence carries on today, i was merely commenting on the ken burns tradition of not moving on from all that tired old nostalgia of the period, jazz was alive in the 70's too, you know?

i'm moving to holland:cool:

[hammond x]

...apologies, i meant to say "jazz was MORE alive in the 70's!"

[peter rh]

as far as I am aware, Holland allows freedom to choose your own
listening.No shooting allowed!

[solarjazzband]

What do you mean?

[hammond x]

...what the jazz world really needs today is a Kurt Cobain figure, someone willing to lay his life on the line for his art, sadly most jazz musicians today are middle-class fitness-obsessed college-educated theorists, no chance of them sleeping in a garage with their horn in a brown paper bag... jazz should be coming from the heart, not the career plan.

[solarjazzband]

Wow! You said something true and interesting here! And you're right, if I look to myself and other musicians I know...!

[Tunk]

I realize I'm kind of late to this conversation and that my point has basically been made, but oh well... I would bet that if you asked most so called succesfull Jazz musicians if they are persuing a career in Jazz music, a lot would probably not limit themselves that way and say, I'm persuing a career in music.(period) For me, it's a no brainer in this regard. I see there are a lot of drummers here, I'm a drummer as well, but I am a hand drummer. I spend hours on end playing accompaniment parts in West African Djembe ensembles that require great ammounts of discipline and endurance. Sometimes I get to play lead. Other times I play in a free Jazz/Rock band that goes from tightly composed yet arhythmic tunes, to just all out going the #@^% off kind of music. I've played in Afro-Beat bands, I play afro-Cuban music, I make my bread and butter paying for dance classes all over the NYC area. All I'm saying is that, while I love the music of Louis Armstrong, Miles, Coltrane, Mingus, Ornette, Brubeck, Cecil, Monk and so on. I've never felt compelled to be a Jazz percussionist or vocalist (I sing too). I'm a musician. And my guess is that they would say the same. After all, Jazz is the great American Fusion music.

[peter rh]

Well said Tunk - I'm with you all the way!