This is going to be a great year for jazz... [Archive]

jazzypaul

January 20th, 2003, 08:54 PM

Pharoahrock --

1) That was meant to be a joke that is only truly funny if you played the MP3.

2) The racial bullshit is played out. For every guy like the guy that screwed up Verve, (a) there's a Bruce Lundvall who is trying to put decent stuff out on the market and (b) there's a Sean Puffy or a Suge Knight (both black guys, mind you) putting out absolute ass music for the masses.

3) I agree, it's screwed up when Grachan Moncur's records are all out of print, but you can get Barney Kessel sides that probably don't sell diddly, just because they're mainstream jazz records. But that's no reason to put race into the equation. That makes things worse. I've had to deal with this crap my whole life, growing up as the only even half-white kid in my neighborhood, and then being a free jazz fanatic in Chicago. I've caught shit from my heroes for not being black, and that's bullshit. Especially when I'm buying your records, supporting your endeavors and for some of these guys, being the only media mouthpiece they have.

4) Not all is lost in the jazz world. There may be less of it out there, but there is some GREAT jazz coming out right now. The last two years have seen me drop my jaw on pretty regular occasion, and that's something that I hadn't been able to do over the new stuff for quite a while, at least not on a regular basis.

I don't mean this to sound nearly as militant as it does. I understand that there are struggles that you've gone through and things that you've seen that I will never understand or comprehend. I would just like to think that in the jazz world, in the world of the world's most intelligent music, that we could get past the whole racial aspect of the game, you know?

Jazz

January 20th, 2003, 09:04 PM

Hey man, what's up with putting my name in quotations like that? That happens to be my real nickname, I'm sorry if it offends your delicate sensibilities, "Pharoahrock".

My point was that even actual jazz musicians have to spend years and years in the old stuff just to move on, and their mostly TRAINED musicians. Expecting a casual listener to catch up with a ton of new development, in the context of what they are familiar with is unreasonable. The fact is that jazz developed super fast in relation to every other style of music with a comparable complexity, and that, like it or not, straight ahead's age gives it some kind of weird mystical validation in the public eye.

Pharaohrock

January 20th, 2003, 09:06 PM

i made a reference to affluent white males and you're going off like I started some kind of inflammatory racial wildfire. "Affluent white males" are who buys all these reissues Paul, point of fact.
your reaction is interesting though insofar as you are basically fulfilling the role of a paranoid white jazz fan who gets skittish when race is so much as mentioned in the context of jazz....it's a touchy subject to be sure but i don't think we do anyone a favor by simply adhering to the "don't bother me and I won't bother you" mentality that currently dominates our thinking about race in this country. "taking race out of the equation" is not a realistic understanding of the relationship jazz has with race, it's an attitude= one that may be functional (avoiding conflict to focus on more "positive" subjects) or simply self-interested (in not wanting to feel any racial guilt.).....(i'm not accusing you of either. i've just seen this role fulfilled too many times by people who had one or the other motive.)

but bruce lundvall? he is nothing but a corporate puppet. the guy is loaded and if he really wanted to shake things up he could start out on his own, and probably sign more artists than blue note(CAPITOL) is willing to gamble on....but i don't think he has any balls. no one has any balls today like alfred lion had balls, that's for sure.

jazzypaul

January 20th, 2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by bombastic
The classic jazz from the 40's-50's-60's is where the great music happened! i'm not going to spend 20.00 on some shit i know nothing about! Jazz is about building on the tradition and modernizing at the same time. I believe it's important that Jazz remain primarily acoustic music, that the voice of the individual is the most important element in this music. just my opinion.:cool: keep jazz alive!

Bombastic, it pains me to say this, but man, remove head from ass! How can anyone modernize without hearing the new stuff, and do you know how much modern acoustic jazz is out there? It's the majority of the market, man! From the posts I've seen of you thus far, you seem like the absolute worst kind of jazz snob -- the one that only buys the safe, condemns everything else, and then complains once again when he sees the jazz market shrink even more. What is that? You don't want people using modern pop material, you don't want rock bands to improvise, you dont want modern jazz musicians to survive (otherwise you would support the buying of their music).

Please, let me know what your deal is...

BariMusix

January 20th, 2003, 09:10 PM

It really sucks to play catch up, especially when cd's usually run for $15.00. I guess I fit the stereotype. I'm white and I listen to older stuff. I didn't have the luxary of living in the time when I could see these cats live. I didn't live in a time when I could buy a lp that cost 2/3 less than the average cd (and that's including inflation over the years) This is my stuggle, this is my passion. I just told my friend tonight that I feel out of touch with what is happening now. There's so much stuff out there, I'm trying to sort through it all as fast as I can while still enjoying it and getting the most out of it that I can. It's hard when people consider what was played or created 10 years ago to be invalid because it's 'old' and therefore has no value. I feel like I'm trekking out alone here, so yeah it's not easy. I am for the forward motion of jazz, but for me at least I can't contribute untill I understand where jazz came from.

Ignore the whole white part, that was me being sacrastic. I can however feel the racial undertones in this country, coming from ALL sides, and they make me feel like I have twice the climb to 'prove' myself. I understand why this is, but it doesn't make it right.

bombastic

January 20th, 2003, 09:10 PM

it's appropriate on this day to mention Kings simple but wise statement, "a man will not be judged by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character". Jazz is not black music or white music, let's just say it's music with character. this is Human Music, Democratic Music- it belongs to no one and it belongs to everyone who wants to participate with an open mind and an open heart. the racism thing is for ignorant minds, ignorant minds have no business in the realm of Jazz or Art of any kind! The artist is interested in experimentation and exploration. Breaking down barriers, not constructing them.

Jazz

January 20th, 2003, 09:15 PM

I'm sorry, but jazz IS an African-American music, and I feel that it is a matter of honor to respect where jazz came from and why it exists. I also acknowledge that it is possible that there is a racial undertone to the music that I may never understand, and I'm okay with that. I just love the music and it is my dream to be a jazz musician.

jazzypaul

January 20th, 2003, 09:19 PM

Pharaohrock, I certainly don't want to start any sort of wildfire either, it's just that it's not the first time you've brought race to the table, and while it does need to be dealt with, it's not at the same level that it once was, and certainly, not within the context of this room, where white or black, lets face it, the majority of our heroes and idols are going to be black.

Is Lundvall the perfect guy to be in his position? Probably not. He's not as cool as the guys who run Nagel-Heyer or Criss Cross; two companies that I feel are incapable of putting out bad music. But he's a lot better than a lot of the guys out there, and lets face it, he has taken some chances, and will probably take more chances in the future. At least he's not the cats running Concord.

I apologize if that last post came off as a little too harsh. As stated before, I'm only looking for harmony amongst jazz fans here.

Pharaohrock

January 20th, 2003, 09:24 PM

Jazz is ESSENTIALLY black music, but not EXCLUSIVELY so. It's a music grounded in a particular cultural experience but which became a universal language. The black man invented the blues but everyone came to understand it. The black man invented all those rhythms you damn near never heard in an or-chestra, but it didn't take long for everybody to be able to feel them.

While I don't believe in trying to legitimize statements through endorsement, I do think King would have agreed with the specificity of that statement more so than having his credo applied as a platitude about race having NO impact on outward results. Race, at least in the context of an African and then AfricanAmerican culture, most certainly had an effect on the development of the foundations of jazz. Anyone who thinks this music would have been created at some point or another by European-descended peoples is plainly fooling themselves in my opinion. The kind of rhythms jazz is based on were completely foreign to the Western musical tradition (with the exception of the waltz.)

Jazz is the gift to all the people of this world born of, what else? A people being stolen away from their homeland into slavery and having to adapt (creatively and passionately) to their new environment and circumstances. The blues was the first revelation from which all else came forth.

Funk is the preacher. Jazz is the teacher.

Jazz

January 20th, 2003, 09:35 PM

Okay if no one else will say it I will:

Originally posted by Pharoahrock
please refrain from stating the totally obvious.

Hey If I have to, so do you. What does that have to do with what Jazzypaul said about the CONTEXT of this room? AND if you were speaking to just Bombastic then make it clear next time.

And you know what? NO FREAKING WONDER jazz isn't going anywhere, jazz fans can't even have a decent conversation without one accusing another one of "fulfilling the role of a paranoid white jazz fan".

Man can't we all just get along?

Pharaohrock

January 20th, 2003, 09:36 PM

i hear ya paul. i'm all in favor of harmony too. i don't think though that because things are "better" that there is nothing to talk about. do i have race on the brain? no, but i certainly don't regard it as some kind of monkey on my back i need to shoo away either.

i'm surprised you're high on nagel-heyer and crisscross though. what both of those labels basically amount to IMO is a sort of blue note revivalism where the music essentially harkens back to 1960s era blue note- some mainstream hard-bop like say, Marcus Printup's new one, and some more progressive in the tradition or people like J-Mac and Grachan Moncur, like some of Conrad Herwig's records.....but Blue Note all the same! It's that aesthetic, that kind of programming, hell even the cover art is obviously knocking up that tree.

NEWS FLASH: We don't live in the Blue Note golden era. Our sensibilities and experiences are different today and therefore our aesthetic is (should be.) different.

This brings an interesting question to mind then. If an Alfred Lion-type jazz entrepreneur was alive today, and had an aesthetic in keeping with the times, who would be on his label??

My answer (and yours) forthcoming on a new thread...

bombastic

January 20th, 2003, 09:37 PM

What i'm referring to, is, if i walk into a music store, i'm going to get the music i'm intrigued by, not because it's new, not because it's old, not because it's jazz, not because it's zydeco, but because it's good music! i promise you, i'm anything but a musical snob. i listen to every kind of music imaginable. i support all artistic experimentation, i just wouldn't pay 20.00 for something i haven't heard.(i have done that in the past with some of the newer names in jazz, and have been disappointed with alot of it), i did get greg osbys "invisible hand" used the other day and i like it alot. i just think you misread and misunderstood the point of that post. tradition is an important element of jazz, wouldn't you agree on that point? also, i still hold that modernization is also, i just don't think you comprehended what i wrote in the way it was meant to be taken.:cool:

Jazz

January 20th, 2003, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
NEWS FLASH: We don't live in the Blue Note golden era. Our sensibilities and experiences are different today and therefore our aesthetic is (should be.) different.

I'm sorry, but why then are there young musicians and listeners who like renaissance music? Why are baroque composers like Bach and Vivaldi, or classical composers like Chopin and Beethoven still admired and their music still played? Why is there a generation of young people who listen to classic rock when they didn't grow up during the 60's or 70's?

I mean are these people just fooling themselves, or can't music still be valid and good after the generation who creates it passes away?

Pharaohrock

January 20th, 2003, 09:55 PM

Actually- yes, they are fooling themselves if they take music of the past to mean the same thing today that it did THEN, and if they're taking that music to be SO terribly fulfilling on its own terms. In short if they take the music of the past as anything more than information that they can use to inform their creations rooted in present sensibilities. And if you want to know my definition of modern sensibilities and aesthetic in jazz, I'll tell you straight out. It's Steve Coleman, "Resistance is Futile." Check it out. If you're middle aged and you don't understand all these new-fangled hip-hop rhythms, listen anyway to gain some perspective on THE PRESENT that you're not really experiencing. Much as John Coltrane flew right over so many bop-conditioned folk.

In any event, I frankly expect that (being slaves to the past) of classical musicians but expect more of jazz musicians, who unfortunately seem to be falling in droves for the allure of a "safe and secure" repertory.

Jazz

January 20th, 2003, 10:06 PM

Maybe creating something new purely in the name of "moving forward" is just as foolhardy as blindly clinging to the past. See I can make sweeping and generalized rhetoric supporting my view too.

Maybe I'll check out Steve Coleman and maybe I won't, but if I do, I gaurantee you I will percieve it differently then you? Why? Because I'm a different person with different taste and different ideas of what good music is.

Oh yeah, and what's that about being middle aged (I'm not by the way) and not getting the hip hop rhythms? You are ALL about stereotypes man, you don't even know me, how can you say I'm not experiencing the present? Just because I'm absorbing older music right now?

You know what you don't get? Moving forward musically has to be a NATURAL thing for someone. It has to be a vision, and visions can't be forced out of a person. I'm not going to like or support new music just because its new, I'll support it if I think it is valid music.

Pharaohrock

January 20th, 2003, 10:16 PM

I didn't say you were middle aged or didn't understand hip-hop -you put that on yourself. But the subjective relative bailout you just did tells me enough about where you're coming from anyway....

to each his own.

ho-hum....

Pharaohrock

January 20th, 2003, 10:19 PM

and of course novelty for novelty's sake is a dogma, but what I'm talking about here is something different. Musicians that recognized every time is going to have an aesthetic that speaks more of that time than anything else.....read Pat Metheny's piece that I just posted. He can make this case much more convincingly and thoughtfully than I.

jazzypaul

January 20th, 2003, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Pharaohrock

i'm surprised you're high on nagel-heyer and crisscross though. what both of those labels basically amount to IMO is a sort of blue note revivalism where the music essentially harkens back to 1960s era blue note- some mainstream hard-bop like say, Marcus Printup's new one, and some more progressive in the tradition or people like J-Mac and Grachan Moncur, like some of Conrad Herwig's records.....but Blue Note all the same! It's that aesthetic, that kind of programming, hell even the cover art is obviously knocking up that tree.

Well, some of it is, and some of it isn't. The new Marcus Printup was interesting to me for one tune: The Bullet Train. That was an amazing track on an otherwise bland album. But that tune was a diamond in the rough. There are others on both of those labels though that are saying some really interesting things within the boundaires of hard-bop. Seamus Blake for one. He's got some great ideas and he is always a great listen. Darrell Grant's work on Criss-Cross was wonderful as well. I admit that a lot of that stuff IS derivative. But it's a far better derivative than what I see coming out of a lot of labels stateside. I have to admit, I think Blue Note's cover art in its hey day was amongst the greatest cover art ever, and I don't think it's been improved upon yet. For whatever in the world that's worth...lol

Jazz: I think moving forward is a necessity, and a way of life unless you are completely caught in the past. I've always been huge on the idea of playing your life through your horn, and unless you live your life in a vacuum circa 1965, that's going to sound modern (hopefully). Do I think everyone needs to attatch themselves to the hip-hop jazz that is becoming prevelant? As much as I like it, no. But I don't think that it's necessarily a good thing to keep one's self in the past just because a large percentage of great music is there.

BariMusix

January 20th, 2003, 10:27 PM

Pharaorock,
It seems that your posts revolve around the idea that Jazz has had a function and still does. This is something I believe in as well.
Please help me to understand what you think is jazz's function now. Is it to uplift our spirts as metheny stated, or is it being used as a tool, like Mingus had used it, to adress racism? Just curious.

Jazz

January 20th, 2003, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
I didn't say you were middle aged or didn't understand hip-hop -you put that on yourself.

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
If you're middle aged and you don't understand all these new-fangled hip-hop rhythms,

So if I'm the one who took that on myself, and you aren't all about stereotypes, then why did you even assume that a middle aged man wouldn't understand hip hop? Nuff said.

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
But the subjective relative bailout you just did

No, I wasn't using a bailout, I was merely mentioning the fact that through this whole thread you still haven't told me what musical elements it is that you even like about what you are supporting. Methinks maybe you don't know?

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
Musicians that recognized every time is going to have an aesthetic that speaks more of that time than anything else

Originally posted by Jazz
Moving forward musically has to be a NATURAL thing for someone. It has to be a vision, and visions can't be forced out of a person.

maybe you should start actually reading my posts before you respond.

Pharaohrock

January 20th, 2003, 10:32 PM

and of course novelty for novelty's sake is a dogma, but what I'm talking about here is something different. Musicians that recognized every time is going to have an aesthetic that speaks more of that time than anything else.....recognizing in turn that most music of the past is somewhat confined to the sensibilities and aesthetic of its time. There are exceptions- like Erik Satie or Coltrane, music so epic and non-vernacular oriented that you can't pin it down to a certain mindset of a culture and period....but hard-bop, Ellington, Baroque music, "classic rock", all of these IMHO, are in no uncertain terms products or their own time.....doesn't mean they're meaningless now, but it does mean that they are not as RESONANT as they were. And if you believe in cultural evolution, then you have to concur with the statement that there SHOULD BE at miniumum, music made in this time period, the present, that is AS RESONANT as Art Blakey or Mozart or Eric Clapton's Cream were in their day. To suggest that music of the past is more compelling than that of today (in spite of the fact that it speaks to dated sensibilities) is to imply that the culture is somehow edevolving or regressing......and which may be true after all in a general sense but you always have your avatars like Steve Coleman operating on the periphery, speaking for the time even as people in the time haven't caught up to their own time, IF YOU DIG.

But read Pat Metheny's piece that I just posted. He can make this case much more convincingly and thoughtfully than I. Serious. That cat is deep. I love him. I think his shit is aesthetically relevant too, it just speaks more to an escapist present. His music makes me happy in a modern way, if that makes sense...

Pharaohrock

January 20th, 2003, 10:33 PM

and of course novelty for novelty's sake is a dogma, but what I'm talking about here is something different. Musicians that recognized every time is going to have an aesthetic that speaks more of that time than anything else.....recognizing in turn that most music of the past is somewhat confined to the sensibilities and aesthetic of its time. There are exceptions- like Erik Satie or Coltrane, music so epic and non-vernacular oriented that you can't pin it down to a certain mindset of a culture and period....but hard-bop, Ellington, Baroque music, "classic rock", all of these IMHO, are in no uncertain terms products or their own time.....doesn't mean they're meaningless now, but it does mean that they are not as RESONANT as they were. And if you believe in cultural evolution, then you have to concur with the statement that there SHOULD BE at miniumum, music made in this time period, the present, that is AS RESONANT as Art Blakey or Mozart or Eric Clapton's Cream were in their day. To suggest that music of the past is more compelling than that of today (in spite of the fact that it speaks to dated sensibilities) is to imply that the culture is somehow edevolving or regressing......and which may be true after all in a general sense but you always have your avatars like Steve Coleman operating on the periphery, speaking for the time even as people in the time haven't caught up to their own time, IF YOU DIG.

But read Pat Metheny's piece that I just posted. He can make this case much more convincingly and thoughtfully than I. Serious. That cat is deep. I love him. I think his shit is aesthetically relevant too, it just speaks more to an escapist present. His music makes me happy in a modern way, if that makes sense...

Jazz

January 20th, 2003, 10:34 PM

Jazzypaul I totally agree that jazz should move forward, but what if I happen not to like the way its moved forward since straight ahead? Am I not allowed that opinion? I'm not sitting here and telling you how much I don't like jazz hip hop (I don't) and that you shouldn't listen to it, and I'm also not precluding the possibility that one day I might like it. I also do my darndest to treat your opinions with respect because of all the very intelligent things you put forward. I'm just tired of people telling me what to like. First I'm stupid because I don't see the light of death jazz, and now I'm stuck in the past. WTF?

Pharaohrock

January 20th, 2003, 10:40 PM

Visions can't be forced out of someone no, but if a whole subculture of jazz isn't even thinking in terms of "having a vision", then you're not going to have visionaries except for that very. very rare breed who can rebuke all conditioning to follow their own muse.

The Blue Note label circa-1965 fostered a culture of musical visionary-ness...that's what I'm driving at, the only reason I see this message as one worth repeating. I think we have a number of musicians who don't even think IN TERMS of vision. They may after all have one if only they could open this channel of their mind, but it's been shut off and the "jazz tradition" doctrine probably has a lot to do with that in my estimation.

Jazz

January 20th, 2003, 10:43 PM

Well, I disagree Pharaohrock (if you're going to force it out of me then), I think the last 20 years of "development" has been EXACTLY people trying to force vision, and you know what? I don't think its working. That's my opinion, it may change in the future after I learn more, or it may not.

Jazz

January 20th, 2003, 10:44 PM

Oh yeah, and you didn't bother to explain to me how I was the one who took that middle age stereotype on myself even though you were the one to mention it.

Pharaohrock

January 20th, 2003, 10:47 PM

Jazz, don't be so sensitive. No one's telling you "what to like." If I've made you feel guilty for listening to what you want to listen to, I'm sorry. That is most certainly your prerogative. (But if I've made you feel guilty that you don't support today's musicians, then I am not sorry. There is much of worth out there if you're willing to do a little digging. And if you buy a living jazz musicians record or check them out at a club, you can actually contribute to that cat's career, rather than just donating to some record exec's
large retirement fund from Capitol records.

But let me be clear I don't think "Jazz hip-hop" is THE FUTURE or something. Steve Coleman is much deeper than "Jazz hip-hop." It's the mood of his music more than anything else that suits these times....IMHO.

Pharaohrock

January 20th, 2003, 10:51 PM

Jazz, you put that on yourself because I didn't point those words toward you. I pointed them at the stereotype which you speak of, because I've found the stereotype with the kind of jazz fans who react sourly to jazzhip-hop to be abundantly true. So I threw out a large net, but rest assured I don't feel I "caught" you.

Now that I've showed accountability, please enlighten this forum who specifically you think is a "failed" visionary of the past twenty years....it may be we agree on more than a few, but it may also be that it still won't change my mind that it's a musicians highest calling to poignantly represent and advance the time he lives in.

Jazz

January 20th, 2003, 11:07 PM

Well, first of all, Pharaohrock, I accept your apology.

I do tend to get sensitive when people put quotations around my name (so, "Pharaohrock", that's what you think), when people imply I'm stuck in the past, and YOU know just as well as I do what you said "If you're a middle aged...". If I had been middle aged you know that would have really stung me which is why you said it. But as you've said, you've expressed accountability and I'm willing to drop it.

Also, being an aspiring musician myself, I am fully in tune with supporting real living musicians, who must eat to make their music.

Okay as far as I can tell, you're saying that this Steve Coleman ISN'T necessarily the wave of the future, just appropriate for this moment of time. Okay, maybe I can agree if I can find it and hear it for myself.

As far as failed visionaries, I've tried to keep away from this topic because its a freakin hot potato, but I'll mention a few:

I think Miles Davis failed miserably in his latest years (not on Bitches Brew, but on later recordings. I don't remember the names of this recordings because as soon as I heard them I thought they were ridiculous and dismissed them from my mind. When I learn more about what jazz is I will go back and listen and analyze.)

From what I've heard of Cassandra Wilson she not my idea of a visionary.

Kenny G or all smooth jazzers.

I know this is from the 70's but I really don't think Weather Report
did much to advance jazz.

This is probably pretty much what you were expecting to hear, but hey its my real opinion, and I'm all for advancing jazz as a legitimate style.

jazzypaul

January 20th, 2003, 11:32 PM

Jazz, I certainly didn't mean to say that you were "Stuck in the past," because you have far too much going for you (as far as your posts would indicate) to limit you in that way. And I'll also say, that for all of my cheerleading for the acts that are out now, some of whom are making incredible music, all of my favorite musical moments did roughly occur between 1960-69. Freddie's second chorus on Witch Hunt, "John McLaughlin," from Bitches Brew, Ornette's Atlantic recordings, Jackie McLean's out stuff from the mid sixties on Blue Note, "Empyrian Isles" and "The Prisoner" by Herbie, "Kirk in Copenhagen" by Rahsaan, Mingus' early 60's work on Atlantic and on his own labels, etc, etc, etc. But, I would be remiss if I didn't say that there is more to modern jazz than just the hip-hop thing. There are guys breaking boundaries left and right right now. The Jason Lindner Ensemble is doing great stuff within the context of the mini-big band, the Mark Turner/Kurt Rosenwinkle quartet is making music that is nothing short of breathtaking. Eldad Tarmu put out a record that left me absolutely fucking speechless. This group out of Minneapolis called Happy Apple completely changed my views on not only how to hear modern jazz, but also how to even market it. These guys are all making music that is not just stretching boundaries, but really, are completely destroying them. And I haven't even gotten to Dave Holland, Kenny Garrett, Matthew Shipp, etc, etc, etc. If anything else, I'm saying that you owe it not only to yourself as a jazz fan, but also to anyone that may hear you, as a musician, to at least hear this stuff and give it a shot. You're young and you have the whole world ahead of you. Don't get caught in one bag.

Not to mention, not one of the guys that you mentioned made visionary music. It can't be a failed vision if it's not visionary in the first place. Before anyone jumps me for that, I mean that Miles in the 80's had long since stopped being an innovator, Weather Report, after 8:30 had been played out, and well, I need say nothing about Kenny G. I may have to smack you for dissing Cassandra Wilson, though. On the strength of her voice alone, I would follow her around like a little puppy dog for the rest of my days, given the chance.

Jazz

January 21st, 2003, 12:01 AM

Thanks Jazzypaul.

I also didn't mean to imply that you said I was stuck in the past, I was just aggrevated. Please accept my apology.

I totally hear you on expanding my horizons, but I want a very very strong foundation in jazz before I try to do that. The thing is, I find that alot of students get so sidetracked by tricks and modernism that they forget to learn jazz. I want to be able to look at the modern horizon through the eyes of a legitimate jazz musician, as close to Miles, Coltrane, Mingus, and Monk as possible. I hope that by doing that I will have a natural vision as to where to go next, but even if I don't, I love straight ahead for what it is - beautiful and intense music. I'll admit it if I don't have that natural tendency to move forward, because I'd rather be a virtuoso at straight ahead then a would-be-innovator with nothing to say.

As for Cassandra Wilson, talking to you is enough to make me listen again, because I do respect your opinion.

Its funny how at times music seems so objective, and at other times seems the opposite. I really don't see ANYTHING in the Beatles that would make them rise above just a regular band, but a musician that I know (really, really talented and educated) really likes them, so I always think twice about it before I talk smack. Things like that make me remember to be more open minded over my natural inclination to think I know it all.

Anyways, I hope this made even a lick of sense, I sure hope my opinions didn't offend anybody. Lets all be united in the cause of jazz music! :cool:

jazzypaul

January 21st, 2003, 12:30 AM

It's amazing how msucians differ from one to the next...
I really don't see ANYTHING in the Beatles that would make them rise above just a regular band, but a musician that I know (really, really talented and educated) really likes them, so I always think twice about it before I talk smack. Things like that make me remember to be more open minded over my natural inclination to think I know it all.
My old trio once decided, at a gig where people had to pay to get in, that we should give everyone something really special. So we did Revolver by the Beatles in its entirety. We didn't have to change one thing harmonically. Any and all changes that we made were rhythmic, except for the part in Yellow Submarine where everyone shouts "and the band begins to play...", where we immediately went into one of my originals, and then segued back into Yellow Submarine. What was originally a 40 minute album turned out to be a just under 2 hour set.

Anyways, I hope this made even a lick of sense, I sure hope my opinions didn't offend anybody. Lets all be united in the cause of jazz music!

Agreed. I'm beginning to like the arguments in here. "blah blah blah. Yeah? well fuck you! Oh man, I'm sorry. No, man, I'm sorry!" Now THIS is turning into a great BBS...

Jazz

January 21st, 2003, 12:36 AM

Agreed. I'm beginning to like the arguments in here. "blah blah blah. Yeah? well fuck you! Oh man, I'm sorry. No, man, I'm sorry!" Now THIS is turning into a great BBS...

Ahahahaha

I want to play nice, but I get mad. Then I feel bad. then I get mad again. There's the timer, time for my meds! :( :mad: :( :) :mad: :D :confused: :( :mad: :D

clifton

January 21st, 2003, 12:38 AM

When we discuss jazz, it's inevitable, and necessary, I think, that we discuss race. More accurately, that we discuss jazz as the creation of a group of African-American geniuses, who developed the music from a very specific cultural and aesthetic point of view. Jazz has many ingredients, instruments and harmony from Europe, for example. But it was African-Americans who put these ingredients together, and added the rhythmic innovation of swing. "Blues feeling" is also a uniquely African-American aesthetic, but it evolves into other permutations depending on the culture or ethnicity of the musician. And when race gets mentioned, the weirdest syllogisms emerge, i.e. whites cannot and should not play jazz, or "black" and "African-American" mean the same thing (they do not, IMHO), or that acknowledging the source of jazz as African-American is a form of reverse racism against whites (it is not). The question of race is the elephant in America's living room. It's huge, we all see it, and we pretend it isn't there. But race will remain the elephant in our living room until we can discuss it honest. There's a lot of worthy postings on this thread, so like it or not, I'll be back for more.

jazzypaul

January 21st, 2003, 07:24 AM

Clifton, I think you're generally right. Yes, race is an issue to deal with in jazz. There are many masterworks that came out of jazz as a direct result of racism and the need for change, like the Freedom Now Suite, Jump For Joy, Fables For Faublus, etc. But the part that we largely forget is that racism's worst days, by far and wide, are behind us. At least in the normal sense of the word. Yes, race is a huge part of jazz, and yes, so was racism. But WAS is the key term here. Now whites are described as the "unhip" guys who don't get it. Even though, let's face it, all of jazz's attempts to be more accepted in the upper eschelons of the art community have basically gotten their biggest push from whites who have gotten past the idea of race. Now we're left with the Wynton's of the world who have to be guilted into putting white guys into their orchestras, and who go around telling white kids that don't have their stuff completely together in High School to pack it in and become lawyers. I admit race is still an issue. And it always will be. But if it's going to be brought up, bring up the issues that are going down on BOTH sides. Make sure people get the balanced picture. And remember, that we're all educated here, and we can all do better than what was out there in the past and certainly what's out there now. So, let's light a candle and buy the world a coke, and live in perfect harmony...

3pointdeli

January 21st, 2003, 07:48 AM

sorry to be late to the party, but this comment (from page one) is false:

"A people being stolen away from their homeland..."

stolen? no.

also (i apologize if this has already been discussed), let's not forget that jazz has just as much to do with advanced harmony (developed in europe) as it does with rhythm. this belief that jazz came strictly from the black experience is simply wrong. the black/white thing is also bogus. jazz wouldn't have been what it was, and now is, without the native american influence. you really think those rhythms are strictly african? please.

jomina

January 21st, 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by 3pointdeli
stolen? no. I would humbly disagree. Sure, money changed hands, but people who were torn from their homelands against their will and sold into slavery could be said to have been stolen. Worse, once enslaved they were treated as cargo goods, property. To be used, abused and disposed of at the masters' will. So stolen property even.

also (i apologize if this has already been discussed), let's not forget that jazz has just as much to do with advanced harmony (developed in europe) as it does with rhythm.[/B] Again I would disagree. This seems to imply that the rhythm is "African" and the melody "European". I think that is quite wrong, or at best not proven, as they say in Scotland, and ignores a whole range of African music beyond the equatorial West Coast drum orchestras of the Fon, Ashanti, and Yoruba (I love this stuff, but it isn't syncopated...) If you haven't already, try reading the hilarious second chapter of Savannah Syncopators by Paul Oliver for the lowdown on the "academic" debate. Dated no doubt, but still relevant it would appear.
All IMMHO, and I am quite happy to stand corrected on any and all points.

3pointdeli

January 21st, 2003, 09:00 AM

"I would humbly disagree. Sure, money changed hands, but people who were torn from their homelands against their will and sold into slavery could be said to have been stolen."

ok. i'll accept that.

maybe i misinterpreted, but the comment seemed to be placing the blame squarely and solely on white people (i.e. europeans "stole" africans from their homeland.)

3pointdeli

January 21st, 2003, 09:10 AM

"This seems to imply that the rhythm is "African" and the melody "European""

i think the rhythm comes from many places, africa being perhaps the most prominent. the melodies (or scales/modes on which the melodies are built) come from many places, but are played primarily on european oriented instruments. i don't think this makes the melody european, but it certainly demonstrates that the melody isn't stricly, or even mostly, african.

so the ahanti, etc. had tunable melodic/harmonic instruments on which they developed advanced music similar (theoretically) to the europeans and asians? (i'm just asking...not implying anything, since i don't know the answer)

jomina

January 21st, 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by 3pointdeli
(i.e. europeans "stole" africans from their homeland.)
Yes, I think that would, at best, be a gross oversimplification of an unclear and complex situation. Ultimately, however, it was Europeans on the coast who bought slaves and fuelled the trade in the interior.

jomina

January 21st, 2003, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by 3pointdeli
i'm just asking...not implying anything, since i don't know the answer)
I'm looking for the answers, too :D
In the meantime, there is a whole lot of music - African and African-American to enjoy and discover. There is incredible diversity in African music, and it is well worth checking out.
The drum orchestras are a fine place to start: the music is both satisfyingly complex and viscerally exciting.

3pointdeli

January 21st, 2003, 09:26 AM

you can't buy what's not for sale. the first injustice was placing a price on humans.

jazzypaul

January 21st, 2003, 09:26 AM

slavery doesn't swing. Just so you know...

3pointdeli

January 21st, 2003, 09:28 AM

"slavery doesn't swing. Just so you know..."

that's a fact.

jomina

January 21st, 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by 3pointdeli
you can't buy what's not for sale. the first injustice was placing a price on humans.
That is a very good point. But there is a whiff of circularity here. After all, which came first: the for sale sign or the wanted ad?

Pharaohrock

January 21st, 2003, 09:45 AM

3pt deli, you're right in pointing out that jazz was a synthesis of various musical elements, including as you mention Native American music but also including the notable influence of Creole music.

I agree with Jomina that the Europe(melody) + Africa(rhythm) equation is far too simplistic. However I would counter to 3pt and anyone else for that matter, that the syncopation in jazz is primarily what distinguished it from all other prior forms of music. "Improvisation" was not entirely unique as we know classical soloists would take cadenzas or extended interpretations of the piece they were playing.

Improvisation set to a syncopated rhythm was the thing about jazz. That and the now-ubiquitously appreciated "blues feeling."

3pointdeli

January 21st, 2003, 09:49 AM

"which came first: the for sale sign or the wanted ad?"

i don't know. all i know is that the buyers and the sellers were both barbarians. those who continue to trade slaves (like the diamond industry for instance) are also barbarians: shameful relics of a time that would be best left in the past, but never forgotten for fear that it might happen again. unfortunately it continues, so there is no "again" about it, only "still." yet the only people who are made to feel guilty about it are white/european americans.

um, what was this thread called again? i'll try to steer my way into the actual topic.

Pharaohrock

January 21st, 2003, 10:17 AM

-blaming Africans for having unscrupulous, barbaric kings who would sell their own people into slavery simply to enhance their own wealth is akin to basically blaming the victim. If you make this argument you're necessarily implying that Africans should have done more to control their own fate and were passive in the face of these degenerate rulers. It is apparently also the case that many Africans turned over brothers and neighbors to be conscripted for slavery....it wasn't JUST the mighty kings assuming brute force to capture their own people.

But does this mean that culture was degenerate or lacking in some kind of moral backbone itself? This is a politically-incorrect question no one wants to face, but certainly as we know the European slave traders were far from virtuous, indeed- afflicted by a certain evil in wantonly dehumanizing other human beings, can we not consider that slavery may have been a marriage made by two rather degenerate/dysfunctional cultures?

I agree in basic principle that the history of slavery is far from being as clear-cut as African= good guy, victim, European= bad guy, victimizer.....but it's a fine line to walk betweeen simply blaming the victims (African slaves were undoubtedly victims.) and giving an accurate account of the situation which puts the proper share of accountability on things that were going on in African culture at that time....

I've heard people blame the willingness of African chiefs and kings to sell slaves on the slave trading introduced by the Arabs (first with Arab subjects, then African). Well, c'mon people, the Arabs may have given the African kings the idea, but whose fault is it for being so easily influenced?? That argument bases its conclusions essentially on the idea that people should be allowed to live in a vacuum to insulate them from their own weaknesses. On that point alone, African culture at that time has something to answer for it would seem.

jazzypaul

January 21st, 2003, 10:40 AM

ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the internet's newest site:

www.allaboutslavery.com

Pharaohrock

January 21st, 2003, 07:53 PM

oh, sorry..... a none-too subtle hint that this is more race-talk than you care to hear. whatever man. you could just choose to ignore it rather than making a snide remark.

jazzypaul

January 21st, 2003, 09:24 PM

It's not that, it's that we've gotten completely off topic. I actually am enjoying the thread and all. You need a sense of humor Pharaoh, I mean, you post some of the most intelligent stuff on this forum, but you're always so freakin' serious!!! Take a joke! This entire thread started as a little snide remark, and it's turned into the most serious thread I've seen yet! Smile! Just once...

Pharaohrock

January 21st, 2003, 09:35 PM

oh okay. i'll get a sense of humor on the way home from the dry cleaners tommorrow. i know a good place where i might be able to come by one. i hear they are pretty expensive though...

lol- i have a sense of humor, i just get into the discussion quite a bit.

- and i'll have you know i was quite upset that there is no such site as allaboutslavery.com. i was hoping to fill in the gaps in my knowledge.....lol.

jazzypaul

January 21st, 2003, 09:37 PM

oh okay. i'll get a sense of humor on the way home from the dry cleaners tommorrow. i know a good place where i might be able to come by one. i hear they are pretty expensive though...

you are great man...cheers...

Jazz

January 21st, 2003, 10:06 PM

"Improvisation" was not entirely unique as we know classical soloists would take cadenzas or extended interpretations of the piece they were playing.

That's a really good point. Something I thought I'd mention was that baroque figured bass symbols were often improvised over to add embelishments, and even changes to the melody. Pretty cool...

clifton

January 21st, 2003, 10:28 PM

2003, a great year for jazz? I'll probably have more to
say on race and racism soon but I sort of want to get back on topic. It's going to be a great year for musical quality. That's true most of the time. But outside of female singers and Tony Bennett, the music doesn't sell, at least not in George W. Bush's benighted America. The jazz market share is something around 2%, although if you count Norah Jones' "Come Away With Me" as jazz, that figure rises to around 3.5%. (IMHO Norah's a jazz artist but "Come Away With Me" isn't really a jazz record). Musically, with its many idioms and an impressive number of younger jazz artists around, we're in great shape. But most retail chains don't sell jazz. NPR dropped most of its jazz funding. Jazz fans need to make a strong show of support for the music. We can buy CD's and attend clubs and concerts, of course. But we can also go to school board meetings and demand more jazz content in the curriculum. And we can stop the silly arguments so many jazz fans have about what jazz or is not, or whether Trane was greater than Wayne, etc. Lists, polls, and debates are often fun, but if 2003 is really going to be a great year for jazz, then I'd say we've got work to do.

bombastic

January 21st, 2003, 10:53 PM

Come on, guys! who cares what color a guys skin is? Jazz doesn't belong to any race! it would be silly to consider that it was the invention of a group of people with only one skin color, and ignorant too! since we are in the year 2003, and the civil rights movement happened nearly 40 years ago, drop it for christs sake! do you think any group of cool jazz musicians would spend their time sitting around bickering over the color of the guys skin who's playing drums! or the mongolian guy on the tenor sax! if he can play the horn, he can play the horn! if one rhythm was invented by a european woman and a melody by an african man and a harmony by a chinese woman and it cooks then it's jazz and as mr. powers would say, and i would reiterate "Yeah,Baby!.........:eek:

jazzypaul

January 21st, 2003, 11:05 PM

So you won't listen to Phish or the Dead, but you'll subject yourself to Austin Powers. Sorry, but it's not my bag, baby...

jomina

January 22nd, 2003, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by bombastic
Come on, guys! who cares what color a guys skin is? Jazz doesn't belong to any race!
Sadly, I feel that race really has everything to do with the how and why of Jazz (even more so the blues, which was quite literally shaped by slavery and racism). Maybe color isn't an issue now in 2003, then again maybe it is... I don't want it to be, but I have a feeling, and to be frank looking at mine and other peoples' previous posts on this subject, that yes, color is an issue now.
I would really love for race, color, belief, gender not to be issues in jazz or in anything else. But I don't think that is the case, and even a cursory glance at the history and the people involved in the making of jazz will show that.
It's the Bitter Fruit.
All IMMHO.

markvi

January 22nd, 2003, 08:01 AM

someone on this thread accused wynton of being racist and discouraging white players. don't tell that to seneca black, one of the trumpet players in the lcjo. wynton heard him play when he was just beginning h.s. or finishing middle school at a district near my home (rural pa.). wynton not only encouraged him, but took a hand in arranging education, guiding his career, and when he was ready, including him in the lcjo at the age of 19 or 20 when he was still a student at manhattan school of music. hardly the picture painted of wynton in a previous post.

jazzypaul

January 22nd, 2003, 10:00 AM

That was me, and I can only speak from second hand experience. During one of the Essentially Ellington contests, Wynton was checking out the band that my friend was in, where the "just pack it in and become a lawyer" comment was made. Even if that's not racist (and said by Wynton, given Wynton's track record, it's hard to think its not) it's still a horrible thing to tell someone, especially in Wynton's position. The absolute best case scenario was still it being in incredibly bad taste.

Pharaohrock

January 22nd, 2003, 11:33 AM

Bombastic, no offense but it's kind of hard to take someone seriously who ends every other sentence in an exclamation mark....like we're all in this desperate need of exhortation, a cheerleader. This is not to mention though that what you said sounds all too cut and dried anyway. Do you really think the issue is that simple, and that it's just a question of some attitude that we can will upon ourselves not to think in terms of race? Attitude is everything? If only man, if only...

Back to the subject: this could after all be a great year for jazz because from what I've heard reissue programs are being scaled back. This means there's the potential for those consumer dollars to go towards NEW jazz, which in my mind is so much more positive for the growth of the music.

Jazz

January 22nd, 2003, 09:44 PM

BariMusix

January 22nd, 2003, 10:08 PM

Back to the subject: this could after all be a great year for jazz because from what I've heard reissue programs are being scaled back. This means there's the potential for those consumer dollars to go towards NEW jazz, which in my mind is so much more positive for the growth of the music.
Well, it is more likely that what will happen is people will stop buying albums altogether. The resurgence if Swing in the late 90's gave people, the new generation of listeners the impression that Swing music = Jazz. Brian Setzner, Royal Crown Review, ect. That sound, that old sound stuck in thier ear and inso doing it again became part of our culture. The music is fun for the common listener, it's dancible (lindy hop), on easy on the ear of the pop listener. People can now relate to this sound in their generation.
I'm not saying this music is great, but it is a style most, and I say most because their are exceptions, young people (non musicians) equate to mean Jazz. Most of the new stuff coming out sounds nothing like Brian Setzner or Royal Crown Revue or Squirell Nut Zippers, ect. People like buying what they are exposed to. So by the record companies cutting the rereleases, music that at the very least sounds similar to the neoswing, they are cutting people who could use the rereleases as a way of getting into Jazz. I hope I'm wrong, but this seems like a bad thing to do right now. After all, how many of us got into jazz by listening to one of the old heavies? For me it was Mulligan. I know Jazzy Paul said his was bitches Brew. We should always move ahead, but is it a good idea to leave behind a whole generation?

jazzypaul

January 22nd, 2003, 11:17 PM

Again, it all comes down to getting people into the music on THEIR level, not ours. Notice that Coypu even, is getting into Zorn. If he digs Zorn, he'll dig Vandermark, he digs Vandermark, he'll dig Fred Anderson, and the string continues. If someone is into aggressive music, give them aggressive jazz. Folk music? Give them some Frisell! Joni Mitchell? Cassandra Wilson and Norah Jones. Hip Hop? Russell Gunn's Ethnomusicology. We need to be better nurses, and actually get involved, as opposed to being sportscasters, and complaining about it from the sidelines...

BariMusix

January 22nd, 2003, 11:46 PM

Well, it looks like I wasn't clear about my arguement. What my post was about is that cutting the rereleases will hurt jazz. I was saying that people were exposed to neoswing, a large portion of the younger audience. They equated neoswing to Jazz. Alot of people that lindy hopped to it eventually got into mid 30's swing.
From there they are more predisposed to expand their view. e.g. find newer stuff out there. Let's face it this audience isn't the biggest group of people, but they are large enough that if they start getting into newer stuff they can influence others and so on. My point is that the rereleases are a venue or window to attrack a larger audiance in the long run. Of course not everyone gets into jazz this way, but why let go of a way to attrack more people. I respect your experiances JazzyPaul. I know you got into Jazz cominng from metal. However you were a musician and a little more predisposed to new music.

jazzypaul

January 23rd, 2003, 12:52 AM

I just think that this argument is a real slippery slope. It doesn't take into account the very large number of kids getting into jazz via the jam band movement, which ALWAYS gets discounted. Notice that Pharoahrock and I have been the only two people to have ever brought up MMW on this forum? Jazz will never die, because people love improvised music. They hear MMW one chord vamps, they hear Dead shows, they see Phish shows, and no matter what, they want more, because good improvisation is addictive. It's why I was drawn to Metallica (their live shows are heavily improv) it's why I was drawn to the dead, it's why I was even drawn to the Flaming Lips. And it's definitely why I was drawn to jazz. People will always want to hear music in and of the moment. Y'all are getting all Chicken Little on me here. Just play some music, play it with conviction, and I promise you, people will hear it, and jazz will continue on. I swear on a stack of Eddie Harris CD's.

Joel

January 23rd, 2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by jazzypaul
Again, it all comes down to getting people into the music on THEIR level, not ours. ...

Same formula that I use, jazzypaul.

The Club/Dance crowd can be enticed into Acid Jazz (straight ahead jazz playing but accompanied by dance beat).

the average rocker will do well with jazz fusion (not the death metal type) but like the old Spyro Gyra,Yellowjackets,Pat Metheny,Al DiMeola and more.

Jazz

January 23rd, 2003, 05:06 AM

Jazz will never die, because people love improvised music.

Man I hate to disagree with this, because it would be great if it was true... but its not true. We live in an age of increasing convenience and pre-packaged everything, including pre-packaged music. The most complaints I hear when people go to concerts is they say something like "I couldn't even tell it was the same song from the album, why don't they play it the same way? blah blah blah". With the way that the common listeners are hearing music, I don't think there's room for improvisation.

I hate to be the Nietszche of the forum, but jazz is dead, man. I hope it can be revived, but we have all been relegated to "those weirdo jazz fans". You know I wouldn't say this unless I believed it, because I dream of being a jazz musician. If jazz musicians could be brothers in arms, so to speak, I think we could have a chance. But its not enough to be a jazz musician for us to feel kindred. The straight aheaders don't like the fusion guys or vice versa. The people who lean towards "modernism" don't like the Wyntons of the world. We can't even decide what jazz IS, let alone present a united front.

I'm also sorry to say this, but music as an artform is dying too. Music is being slowly transformed from an aesthetic into a functional. If you don't believe me, ask everyone you know that's not a musician how much time they spend JUST listening to music. Not reading while listening, not while driving, not while eating or even thinking about other things, not doing anything else JUST concentrating on the music they like to get the most out of it. Go to any pop/rock show where the fans are screaming at the top of their lungs. Do you think they are there to hear the music? How can they hear the music over all the screaming? They are there for the social experience and environment, which demotes the music from the focus of the audience to a peripheral.

If you still don't believe me, look at the amount of disrespect for musicians!! Now, anyone who can play 3 chords on a guitar, sing mostly on key and has a record contract is an "artist". I find that amazingly offensive considering the years of work and study I've put into becoming a musician. I get people all the time who pretty much tell me I wasted my time studying music because I'm "putting myself in a box", and somehow, if I didn't know anything about music I could be more creative. Music is becoming a novelty! I don't know if its the record companies forcing it down everyones throat, or if they are just providing what is asked for...

As far as playing stuff with conviction, anybody who writes and plays twelve tone does it with a TON of conviction, and I don't see any people flocking to hear that mess.

Okay guys, I'm sorry I ranted, but I've got one more thing on my mind. I think guys like Wynton Marsalis are doing WAY more to perpetuate jazz than guys like Metheny. I'll tell you why. Wynton spends his time in the styles that are DEFINITELY jazz. No one EVER argues that Miles Davis circa 1950 isn't jazz. Duke Ellington, Dizzy, etc., ad nauseum. But when jazz started breaking up as a cohesive style, when people started to argue about what jazz is or isn't, when practically EVERYONE disagrees about how to define it or where to go next, its time to go back to the roots. To the last definable spot. Also, when someone like Metheny encourages EVERY musician to try and be "original" I think its a huge mistake. Unless I've missed something (and I very well may have, I admit), ALL the great styles were started by either one person, or a pair of visionaries, with followers who expanded and added their own interpretations. I think that every jazz musician trying to be a visionary, instead of just being content to play a music that is both passionate and sophisticated, is a case of too many chiefs and not enough indians. I think that if we revel in the beauty of the music, and love the music enough to just play it and not worry about where its going next, that only then will we realize what the next step is.

One more thing (the LAST I promise): If Metheny (or anybody else) has to actually lecture on the idea of making this music relevant to our modern culture, I consider that to be the final nail in the coffin. If it isn't naturally happening then it shows that there isn't much hope for the music.

Okay guys, that's what I think. Sorry for being so negative, but its truly how I feel. Feel free to debate and argue with me, and I promise to try and not be heated about it, if we can all be polite.

Pharaohrock

January 23rd, 2003, 08:41 AM

Wow, where to begin....

I think in most all of your posts I've witnessed a certain clinging to the idea of what "real jazz" is, and the notion that consistency with "the jazz tradition" is the only thing to truly validate music as being Jazz.

Wynton spends his time in the styles that are DEFINITELY jazz. No one EVER argues that Miles Davis circa 1950 isn't jazz. Duke Ellington, Dizzy, etc., ad nauseum

- Yes, and if you want to play it safe and work only within the confines of what has safely been determined to be jazz, for the sake of some "cohesive" definition of jazz, that's your prerogative. If this is all Jazz is and can be though, then let me be emancipated from the very idea because I, frankly speaking, don't want to live in the past. And If Wynton Marsalis represents the future of "Jazz" then you're absolutely right- the music IS dead.

I'm not going to argue the merits of Pat Metheny; just pause for a moment to realize the guy has been more of a populist for jazz-related (if not "jazz" in a safe definition) music than anyone of the past 20 years.....and this is what we're talking about right?? Getting more people into the music? Metheny has brought people of all ages and races (go to a concert- very diverse) to Jazz whereas it's quite clear that Lincoln Center doesn't have much appeal beyond baby boomers and the black bourgeoisie.

Since you made a point to imply Metheny as someone who isn't truly within the bounds of jazz though, never mind that he's received the highest endorsement from Mr. bebop himself- Roy Haynes...

Also, when someone like Metheny encourages EVERY musician to try and be "original" I think its a huge mistake I think that if we revel in the beauty of the music, and love the music enough to just play it and not worry about where its going next, that only then will we realize what the next step is.

Agreed. But hasn't 20 years of hard-bop rehash been enough already??? I see many straight-ahead musicians who frankly seem bored to me, and passion and convictions aren't options when you became bored with the music you play a long time ago. Unfortunately, while these musicians may be bored they have a vested interest (identity, income) in being a straight-ahead jazz musician, so they keep plowing along the same uninteresting, uninspiring road, playing Cherokee for the 719th time or Moanin' for the 345th time. And playing solos that are very, very reminiscent of solos they've taken before. Therefore, therefore---

NOT PLAYING JAZZ. True jazz is a lot more than just consistency with a style, "sounding" like what jazz is supposed to sound like. If musicians are going through the motions with the music they play, if they're playing solos they've played more or less the same way many times before, they're actually doing an incredible disservice to the historical spirit of the music they supposedly revere.

I don't have some blind faith that says you can have relentless continual innovation in jazz if you just have the will/attitude, etc, but I do believe musicians who are merely repeating themselves should have the heart to acknowledge that they're only playing the music by the letter of the law, not the spirit that drove all of the historical developments heretofore. Improvisation is the ultimate mandate of all jazz musicians. Improvisation both in forms and in content. I see far too many musicians today who are content to use the same old forms, and yet-- their solos betray that they're not really improvising off those old forms in a fresh way that would legitimate what is otherwise, by the form= style re-creation. Repertory music.

Just remember, when Charlie Parker was taking solos over Cherokee for the first time, it was a genuine f*cking revelation= for himself, for the audience, for everybody. But when Wessell Anderson takes solos over Cherokee, after he's studied hundreds of Bird transcriptions, and heard bebop to the extent that there is no more revelation- simply a codified language......there can be little bona-fide improvisation.

In this light, whether one wants to accept it or not, today the spirit of true improvisation is more likely to found in avant/out jazz. Many straight-ahead musicians are just "performing"= they're not surprising themselves, they're not surprising anybody else either. I'm not even a big avant/out fan either. I just know that the bottom line is, they're representing the spirit of the music better (especially if they've got some musicianship to boot!) than many of the straight-ahead jazz cats these days.

jazzypaul

January 23rd, 2003, 09:30 AM

Pharaohrock -- don't let anyone ever tell you that you don't have it nailed right on the head.

Jazz -- sorry, but it's time to dig in my heels. I'll try to keep from dispensing with too much of my usual venom. But you sound like my 8th grade music teacher. He, too said that jazz was a dead artform. There was nothing more that could be done with jazz. The worst part is, in a way, he's right. You can't play be-bop any faster than Bird, you can't construct a tune with more changes than Giant Steps, you can't play more out that Anthony Braxton and you can't play more free than Roscoe Mitchell. In the sense of jazz as a constricted artform, both you and that fat drunk are correct. But both of you forget that jazz is largely an art that draws from the modern. There was a link between Pops and his material. There was a link between Be-Bop and the Beat poets, between Ornette and Jackson Pollock, and between the Black Panthers and Archie Shepp. There was even a link between Weather Report and the overblown excesses of prog-rock and Studio 54. The 80's were a conservative time, and called for conservative jazz, a la Wynton. But now, we're on the dawn of a new century, and hell, a new millenium! And much like our world has blown apart boundaries, so has our jazz music. MMW has let the stoners and Deadheads know that jazz is vital music. Russell Gunn's Ethnomusicology and Tha Roots have let the hip-hop world know that jazz is vital music. And John Zorn has let anyone with any sense of what may be hip know that jazz is vital music. The complaint I've heard from most of my friends most of the time is that it's old people music. And when we keep looking to jazz as this nostalgic thing, playing nostalgic tunes in a nostalgic style, then, you know what? It IS old people's music. But, it's nuts. I play Kurt Elling overdubbing himself left and right on his version of Man from Tanganika, and people step back and say, "well, shit, this is something cool!" When I bust out Wayne Horovitz and the blessed Zony Mash, people get down with it. When I bust out Charlie Hunter, everyone gets down. Maybe I just have the hippest friends in the universe, but poker players aren't traditionally jazz fans, and being that none of them are jazz fans, I can only think that they're simply hearing something really cool and responding to it. This isn't to say that I don't love my Lee Morgan and Hank Mobley discs; I do. But I know better than to play them around people who don't think they dig the music. Something I tell my Christian friends constantly is this: Life is a PR game. Play the game with good PR skills, and everyone will play the game by your rules. Play the game with bad PR skills, and everyone will find someone with better PR skills to listen to. Who says that this shouldn't apply to jazz as well?

Pharaohrock

January 23rd, 2003, 10:33 AM

and actually, i'm the first person to defend musicians playing straight-ahead folks to non-jazz people (or the avantgarde cat who's never really checked out traditional jazz) who think they're just playing background music or "old folks" music or that they're flat-out corny. I know there are people playing this music passionately and with some level of freshness or at least- refinement, and forgive me if I gave the impression that I think straight-ahead cats are uniformly unoriginal and uninspired. I know that's not the case. Some of the musicians I most respect are very much steeped in all the older styles.

So don't get me wrong, I think there's still vitality in "the tradition", I just seriously question the belief that the only true jazz is that music which reminds of older styles, where the lineage and the precedents are in abundance....

Certainly in his time, Ornette Coleman did not remind of the tradition in a clear way- and certainly Coltrane's sheets of sound was not considered "textbook" jazz, nor was Roland Kirk being "serious" enough for jazz because of his quirks......these and many others are points of perspective to remember before we go about trying to actively exclude new music in our own time as being counter to "the tradition." Because clearly a lot of this resistance gets washed out over time.

clifton

January 23rd, 2003, 01:53 PM

The so-called "tradition", which to me is bebop, is the foundation of jazz. But you still need to build the entire house. That's where the innovators are. In order to make 2003 a great year for jazz, we need to accept the diversity of jazz. It's a music of many styles, and it's quite healthy, artistically. But the economics of the corporate media have almost entirely marginalized jazz. Of the major retail chains, only Borders carrie a decent jazz selection, although I've read that Barnes & Noble intend to sell jazz, too. NPR has virtually elimiated funding for jazz. You don't hear jazz on radio or television. And the majo record companies have dropped jazz. I notice that I'm buying most of my jazz through Jazz Heritage Society, which sells a lot of good records at great prices. But JHS sells mostly estblished artists and reissues. Pharoarock and Jazzypaul, you're absolute right about the need to support younger artists, so for David S. Ware or Matt wilson, I go to www.aumfidelity.com or www.palmetto-records.com The stongest sttements we can make as consumers is to go to live concerts and buy CD's by lesser-known, younger artists. I also realized that (OK it's IMHO) many fans don't support younger artists because they may be afraid that experiments with DJ's or electronica will destroy straight-ahead music But th won't happen, straight ahead is still very powerful. I plan to keep my eyes, ears, and heart open so I cn buy and listen to jazz in all its idioms.

bombastic

January 23rd, 2003, 02:20 PM

Pharoah, you're probably right on the exclamation points!( just kidding). the reason i put them there is for emphasis, and out of anger about this racial thing that is going to go on forever if you and the others don't wake up. it's kid stuff plain and simple to continue dwelling on this subject of whether a human being is african or irish or chinese. the naive individual is the one who worries about who a certain music "belongs" to. read the history of jazz and you'll realize that it originates from myriad sources, not one group of people alone. i'm not being a "cheerleader" for anyone, simply stating the truth as i understand it. when is the human race going to get over this childish fighting about skin color like a group of first graders in the schoolyard? i'm just saying grow up, man. if not now, when?:confused: i'm never serious- i try to have a sense of humor about everything, and try to be sincere in what i say. stay cool, man. The Austin Powers thing is a silly joke, i know it's pop-culture crap, but i have to say, i would rather watch that movie than listen to phish or the grateful dead wanking-off for 6 hours.:rolleyes:

3pointdeli

January 23rd, 2003, 02:24 PM

i find that when i go to borders (the only retail chain i buy music from) i'm uninspired compared to when i'm searching amazon. when i'm shuffling through jazz cds it'd be nice if the store were playing jazz, but that hasn't happenned since the ken burns factor faded away. basically it's just not fun to buy music in stores anymore (except for used vinyl, but that's a whole other world.) in comparison, amazon, and perhaps other online retailers, have lots of lists, reviews, reccommendations, etc. these things put me in the mood to look around and see what i can find. every time i look at amazon i find several things i want to buy (even though i'm usually just looking). but more often than not, at a retail store i just want to leave, or at best, i just want to look in the bargain bins for a cheap and quick (usually re-issue) purchase.

if it turns out to be a good year for jazz the retail stores aren't going to deserve any of the credit.

Jazz

January 23rd, 2003, 02:48 PM

Okay, all of you guys said some really intelligent stuff, so just know that I respect you guys.

Pharoahrock,

I think in most all of your posts I've witnessed a certain clinging to the idea of what "real jazz" is, and the notion that consistency with "the jazz tradition" is the only thing to truly validate music as being Jazz.

Yes Pharaohrock, there IS such a thing as "real jazz". Is deathmetal jazz? How about country music, if they use extensions? How about polka? How about Bob Dylan, is he jazz? In order for a style to be a style, there have to be elements that bind the music together, right? AND, if a music IS a style, it is a style to the EXCLUSION of other kinds of music (if a style of music is "deathmetal" it isn't "soul"). Well, not only do I NOT hear alot of "jazz" in the modern style of music, I have also professed that my opinion may change in the future with the more I learn. What more can you ask of me than that? On the other hand, you can't even consider old music to be relative to modern people!

Yes, and if you want to play it safe and work only within the confines of what has safely been determined to be jazz,

Dude, I knew when I wrote that post that you were going to go there. The playing it safe argument, but you know what? If you read my post you'll see that I don't want to play it safe, I want to go back to when jazz was an actual style that people played and start actually developing the music again. What's safe about that idea? I'm 1 of only 2 people I've ever talked to that even thinks that, so exactly how am I being safe?

And If Wynton Marsalis represents the future of "Jazz" then you're absolutely right- the music IS dead.

Where did I say Wynton was the future? I said he was PERPETUATING jazz better than Metheny. Which I still think is true but I'm going to give you the chance to change my mind.

Since you made a point to imply Metheny as someone who isn't truly within the bounds of jazz though, never mind that he's received the highest endorsement from Mr. bebop himself- Roy Haynes...

I don't care if John Coltrane walked out of his grave and gave Metheny his personal thumbs up. I think for myself. But, I want you to tell me what ONE NEW style of jazz Metheny has stuck with for the past 5 or 6 years. And how many followers he has for his new movement. ONE cohesive style, and I might have to eat my words (which I will gladly do, if I do it in regard to finding new life in jazz music).

I know there are people playing this music passionately and with some level of freshness or at least- refinement, and forgive me if I gave the impression that I think straight-ahead cats are uniformly unoriginal and uninspired.

Thank you for saying that, it was really nice to read.

I just seriously question the belief that the only true jazz is that music which reminds of older styles, where the lineage and the precedents are in abundance....

No, I'm not necessarily saying that either. Look, the transition from swing music to bop was pretty bumpy. Bop doesn't sound like swing. The connections are there but you have to really know what you are listening to to hear them. I realize that if jazz moves forward it may be like that, a bumpy transition. WHAT I DO expect from development of a style in jazz is THAT IT DOES NOT THROW AWAY everything or even parts of the things that make jazz what it is. Notice that everytime jazz moves forward, it does so by ADDING more material to itself. So think of how complex straight ahead is, and trying to add more to it while trying to keep it a style that everybody wants to play. Because after all, if only one or two people plays in their new style, its not a movement, just a couple of guys' interpretation.

these and many others are points of perspective to remember before we go about trying to actively exclude new music in our own time as being counter to "the tradition."

I seriously don't know where I'm saying that, but if I said something to give you that impression I apologize. But, I already told you why I don't like the way modern music is going. If we HAVE to fuse jazz with MODERN NOVELTY just to make it perpetuate, I would rather just play straight ahead as a novelty (a novelty to other people that is) instead of ripping its wings off to keep it on the ground where people understand it better.

Jazz

January 23rd, 2003, 03:21 PM

Jazzypaul,

But both of you forget that jazz is largely an art that draws from the modern. There was a link between Pops and his material. There was a link between Be-Bop and the Beat poets, between Ornette and Jackson Pollock, and between the Black Panthers and Archie Shepp.

Okay, I want you to name me what modern musical elements Bird and Diz drew from to create bop. Name me the modern style of music that they gleaned from to create it. Tell me what "modern" sensibility gave Louis the idea to swing.

And when we keep looking to jazz as this nostalgic thing, playing nostalgic tunes in a nostalgic style, then, you know what? It IS old people's music.

You know, that is the FIRST time I've ever even THOUGHT about that argument, I haven't even heard it before from anyone else. Old people's music? What does that mean? If people can't even hear music for what it is instead of JUST the associations it brings immediately to mind, then we live in a society full of children: "Old people's music is old, and old is dumb." And what's wrong with old people? There's a ton of old people I like, some of them are very wise. Don't forget you guys are growing old too, pretty soon you will be having young hooligans telling you you aren't relevant anymore. Coming from a perspective where the effort is made to respect music if it is good and intelligent, regardless of age, makes that argument hard to for me to understand.

This whole relevancy to today issue is moot anyway. I don't even know why it keeps coming up. If the musicians have a true passion for the music, they will make it relevant in one way or another. That's the way it works: the musician lives in his own time and wants to express the music he loves. He obviously has been influenced by society and that influence goes into his music. Obviously, if Wynton and other people are still playing hot jazz, THAT MAKES HOT JAZZ RELEVANT TO TODAY!!! WHY?!?!?! BECAUSE ITS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW! As soon as people stop playing hot jazz, it ceases to be relevant. That's why composers like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Stravinsky, Rachmaninov are still relevant today. Musicians are keeping it alive by introducing it to a new audience who in turn interpret it in a way that is relevant to their life. I just don't see the problem with that.

RodneyDude

January 23rd, 2003, 03:51 PM

And when we keep looking to jazz as this nostalgic thing, playing nostalgic tunes in a nostalgic style, then, you know what? It IS old people's music.
JazzyPaul is right. That old jazz is old peoples music. Get with the times. I think Pharaorock knows what he is talking about when he posted that Metheny post. You ramble about old jazz but it's old so why even talk about it. It's no longer valid. We need to push ahead and not keep jazz back. Reread Metheny and you will understand.

jazzypaul

January 23rd, 2003, 05:03 PM

Rodney, thanks, but I can fight my own battles...

And jazz, I thank you for the opportunity to debate. I loves me a good argument, so here goes...

Okay, I want you to name me what modern musical elements Bird and Diz drew from to create bop. Name me the modern style of music that they gleaned from to create it. Tell me what "modern" sensibility gave Louis the idea to swing.

When did I say that it was always musical? Chicago Hot Jazz, even with its roots in Dixieland and marches, still swung. What made Pops innovative was that he was the first guy to solidify jazz as an artform. Dixieland was largely collective improvisation. Pops figured out that it sounded cooler if one guy soloed over the top of a few people comping behind him. What made him popular was taking pop tunes (which he even did within the context of the hot fives) and played them in this new and exciting style. From what I understand, The Be-boppers, from a musical standpoint, were simply getting bored playing in the swing bands, and wanted to get back to playing MUSIC. They heard Coleman Hawkins, Lester Young and Roy Eldridge, among others, the ones that were playing really hip stuff, and just expounded upon it. But this all brings me away from my point: This is the first generation of jazz players that largely doesn't WANT to look to their own generation for either ideals or ideas. Just because you don't like what you see doesn't mean that you shut it out, it just means that you attack it from a different angle. If you tell me that today's climate of hostility and fear doesn't need to be addressed from a jazz standpoint, it only goes to prove that we as jazzers have lost touch.

Old people's music? What does that mean? If people can't even hear music for what it is instead of JUST the associations it brings immediately to mind, then we live in a society full of children: "Old people's music is old, and old is dumb."

You know what? I agree with you. Totally. But, the thing is, we are musicians, and if we just played for ourselves, we'd just be playing with ourselves. And that's alright if you're Michael Brecker -- He's made a career out of it. The thing is, if you haven't gotten that argument from anyone, then you live in a pretty hip little pocket of the world. Because, I've heard both of the following quotes so many times it makes me sick...

1) "Dude, jazz is old people's music. I know you like Martinis and sports cars and all (I do, I really really do) but does your entire life have to be a cliche?"

and if that wasn't insulting enough, there's this one...

2) "Man, you're a good enough drummer, why don't you just be the best rock drummer out there and actually play for your friends instead of your friends grandparents?"

It's the truth. Think of the average person thinking of jazz. What do they think of? Freddie Hubbard and Wayne Shorter playing some absolutely sick stuff? No, not at all. They're thinking of music that their grandparents listened to. They're thinking of old grainy black and white movies of people swing dancing. They may think of Sinatra singing in some velour covered lounge somewhere in the 50's. But how many of them are thinking of a bunch of badasses that burned up the stage last night? When people think of jazz, they think nostalgia. And nostalgia is longing for a time long ago. Yes, we both know lots of old people. Yes, I respect them all. And most of the time, they respect the fact that I don't want to make music for them, I want to make music on my terms (that would be jazz) that reflects my times and speaks to my people (other gearhead, baseball loving jazz freaks. all 4 of us). So, yes, I've heard that argument. Yes, I halfway agree with it. And, Jazz, lemme tell you the differnce between you and me. If my kids are dumb enough to become musicians, and they're really insane and want to play jazz, I can only hope that they'll think I'm old fashioned and that they really want to tear the roof off the sucka. Nothing would make me a prouder parent than that.

Originally posted by Jazz
I don't care if John Coltrane walked out of his grave and gave Metheny his personal thumbs up. I think for myself. But, I want you to tell me what ONE NEW style of jazz Metheny has stuck with for the past 5 or 6 years. And how many followers he has for his new movement. ONE cohesive style, and I might have to eat my words (which I will gladly do, if I do it in regard to finding new life in jazz music).

World-Jazz fusion. Marshall Vente, Richard Bona, Bob Curnow to name three. There are definitely more that I could name. Metheny was also largely responsible for bringing Ornette tunes into the standard lexicon, and getting Ornette a modicum of respect from modern players. The interesting thing about Metheny is his ability to change styles. Avant-Garde, acoustic trio, World-Jazz Fusion, straight ahead, even the weird ass hip hop fusion that he was toying with on We Live Here. Metheny may not be playing what you want him to play, but he definitely plays some interesting stuff, definitely knows the history of the music, and has gone out of his way to try to do some interesting things within the confines of the music, while stretching it here and there.

Just because other people play in a certain style of jazz doesn't make it more relevant. You're using Ellis Marsalis' argument, which I always thought was a rather weak one. Wynton plays hot jazz because it's safe within his confines. People go to see it because Wynton's putting it on.

You have the right to play what you want to play and do what you want to do. You've decided to put the effort in that it takes to play this music, and I certainly won't be the one to stop you. If anything, I want to know what it is that you don't like about Douglas, Holland, MMW, Turner, Potter, Nelson, Lupri, Tarmu, Redman, Blade, Blake (any of the three that I can think of...), Rodney Jones, Lyambiko, Mehldau, McBride, Moran, Hunter, etc, etc, etc...

Jazz

January 23rd, 2003, 07:05 PM

Jazzypaul,

This is a good discussion, and I hope I can come out of it understanding your viewpoint better.

Chicago Hot Jazz, even with its roots in Dixieland and marches, still swung.

No, actually, if you listen to pre solo Louis Armstrong hot jazz it doesn't really swing. It sounds like they're trying, but not succeeding. That's the gift Louis imparted, was that powerful sense of forward movement. Its hard to even find recordings of some of that stuff though...

From what I understand, The Be-boppers, from a musical standpoint, were simply getting bored playing in the swing bands, and wanted to get back to playing MUSIC.

Yes that was exactly my point, it was a natural advancement to the next level of playing. I don't think they sat around trying to figure out what musics they should "fuse" to swing music. They had very, very specific musical elements they wished to use to develop a new style. Just, a vision you know? They didn't have to sit around and discuss the future of the music, they just did it. Bop also did not sound like ANYTHING else happening in that time, so the whole "relating to modern sounds so people will like it" is out the window with those guys, because as far as I'm concerned they were the ultimate rebels. As far as I know, they didn't give a flying rats patootie to what anyone thought of them OR their music.

But this all brings me away from my point: This is the first generation of jazz players that largely doesn't WANT to look to their own generation for either ideals or ideas.

I don't think thats what is happening. This is a largely uneducated theory, so you can dismiss it if you want, but its been my increasing impression since I've been learning more and more. AND like I said, I may change my opinions when I have learned more. This is what I think happened: I think everybody took the path of least resistance with jazz, because lets face it: straight ahead is HARD. Its way easier to criticize straight ahead's legitimacy as a style or its relevance to our modern society than it is to actually play it without sounding like a crappy musician.

Anyways, I think if this generation of jazz players are returning to the old stuff, it just speaks to the lack of real development since the old stuff. I mean seriously, if these modern styles of jazz are so good, then why are more people flocking back to straight ahead? But, if it is how you say, that this new stuff is legitimate, then I am just a throwback that relates to an older style of music, no one will listen to me; and these new musics will develop under their own steam and musicians will flock to play them.

About that stuff that people tell you, that's really messed up man. It sucks that you have to put up with that kind of crap.

It's the truth. Think of the average person thinking of jazz. What do they think of? Freddie Hubbard and Wayne Shorter playing some absolutely sick stuff? No, not at all. They're thinking of music that their grandparents listened to. They're thinking of old grainy black and white movies of people swing dancing. They may think of Sinatra singing in some velour covered lounge somewhere in the 50's. But how many of them are thinking of a bunch of badasses that burned up the stage last night? When people think of jazz, they think nostalgia. And nostalgia is longing for a time long ago.

I agree with you, but I also think it doesn't have to be that way. What is it about the actual structure of the music, the harmonies, tonalities, improvisational techniques that NATURALLY implies black and white movies? I mean, what does that have to do with anything? Back in the classical era, they wore powdered wigs while they played music, and now when classical music is played, they don't. Is the music now less valid because the musicians aren't wearing powdered wigs? If you never knew they wore powdered wigs, would the music impart that knowledge to you? The truth is, its not a problem with the music, its a problem with the way other people percieve the music.

And, Jazz, lemme tell you the differnce between you and me. If my kids are dumb enough to become musicians, and they're really insane and want to play jazz, I can only hope that they'll think I'm old fashioned and that they really want to tear the roof off the sucka. Nothing would make me a prouder parent than that.

You are right, we are different in that respect. If I had children I would teach them that the concept of "old fashioned" is something to be completely ignored, and I would want to teach them to look for the truth and validity in things regardless of how new or old those things are.

Just because other people play in a certain style of jazz doesn't make it more relevant.

That's a double edged sword right there, though I'm confident you were already aware of that. That's exactly what my argument was for hot jazz! I was trying to say that its still relevant since people still listen to it and musicians still play it. The fact that people play newer forms of music doesn't decrease hot jazz's relevance (however much relevance it has). It seems we think different things but think them in the same way. What a trip...

You're using Ellis Marsalis' argument, which I always thought was a rather weak one. Wynton plays hot jazz because it's safe within his confines. People go to see it because Wynton's putting it on.

If you think the argument I used is weak, then you are calling tons of super respected composers (like the ones I listed: Bach, Mozart, Rachmaninov etc.,) irrelevant to modern listeners. Even if you did believe that, its not a supportable position. But I know you don't really believe that, because if you did you wouldn't even like jazz. The truth is, if straight ahead isn't relevant to modern society, neither is any other style of jazz. Why? Because look around, nobody likes jazz. Everybody listens to soul, rap, rock, or pop. Its pretty clear what people like, and I gaurantee you that anyone I showed John Zorn to, if they liked it, would already be the kind of person disposed to going against the masses' taste. Jazz fans of any kind are a minority, therefore by your reasoning less relevant than other kinds of music and stale.

If anything, I want to know what it is that you don't like about Douglas, Holland, MMW, Turner, Potter, Nelson, Lupri, Tarmu, Redman, Blade, Blake (any of the three that I can think of...), Rodney Jones, Lyambiko, Mehldau, McBride, Moran, Hunter, etc, etc, etc...

I don't know any of those cats except for Hunter, who I checked out because you mentioned him, and I liked his music. I don't know if he's supposed to be the next wave of jazz, if he is I would disagree with that. But he grooves pretty good, and I think his music is higher quality than most.

I left the Metheny stuff until last:

World-Jazz fusion. Marshall Vente, Richard Bona, Bob Curnow to name three. There are definitely more that I could name.

Well, I will look into that and see whether or not I think it sounds connected enough to jazz to be called jazz, and whether I think it is musically valid.

Metheny may not be playing what you want him to play,

Dude you totally understimate me here. You are thinking that just because I disagree with you that I am close minded. I KNOW that what I want Metheny to play (whatever that is) has nothing to do with whether his music is valid, and whether or not it is jazz.

I look forward to your response.

omar zamora

January 23rd, 2003, 07:39 PM

I'm not a musician, so I dunno, but I think some of you guys tend to fetishize the word Jazz. I think people get too attached to the word. It's almost as if attaining Jazzness is more important than experiencing (or in your cases, playing) a creative musical expression.

I realize playing and listening to music that applies the constraints of a musical idiom can be rewarding and fulfilling. But doesn't it get to the point where it becomes constricting? I know that when people start talking about genres being valid or not, that's what I start to hear.

The great thing of a new 'movement' (for lack of a better word), such as bop in the 40's, the New Thing in the 60's, Louis Armstrong's music in the 20's, etc. is that it hasn't yet been codified. They are in the process creating a new language. After that, followers come, some will add, enhance, improve the language, and some will not. The raw urgency of the unknown starts to get lost, even if beautiful things can be produced. However, when I start hearing people say they won't play this or that or won't listen to this or that because it doesn't fit a clear definition of something or the other - well, that just sounds kinda depressing to me.

No offense to anyone, though - just my thoughts.

BWTFDIK

Jazz

January 23rd, 2003, 08:03 PM

I'm not a musician, so I dunno,

Okay.

but I think some of you guys tend to fetishize the word Jazz. I think people get too attached to the word. It's almost as if attaining Jazzness is more important than experiencing (or in your cases, playing) a creative musical expression.

I am merely pointing out that if a style is going to be called jazz, it should be jazz and not something else. Since I want to be a JAZZ MUSICIAN, it makes sense for me to want to perpetuate the style in a way that improves and expands upon the genre already laid out for us. I did not say that all music should be jazz, and that music that isn't jazz isn't valid, or that music can't be creative outside of jazz. I didn't even say that fusion isn't valid music, just that from what I've heard (which I have admitted over and over is not a TON) its not justifiable to call it jazz.

I realize playing and listening to music that applies the constraints of a musical idiom can be rewarding and fulfilling. But doesn't it get to the point where it becomes constricting?

No, actually that's what I keep saying I love about straight ahead, its a style (i.e. you can tell what kind of music it is when you listen to it) but not constricting to a musician who is creative enough.

However, when I start hearing people say they won't play this or that or won't listen to this or that because it doesn't fit a clear definition of something or the other - well, that just sounds kinda depressing to me.

Okay well, I seem to remember you telling Coypu that you thought the music he posted was boring, sooo.... that means you won't listen to his music because it doesn't fit your clear definition of "interesting". C'mon man, you can't expect that view to hold up. Everybody has stuff that they dislike. I also never said I wouldn't listen to something because of a genre, I was speaking specifically on the development of jazz, which is what this discussion is about. So music that doesn't fit the jazz genre doesn't belong in this discussion.

omar zamora

January 23rd, 2003, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Jazz
Okay well, I seem to remember you telling Coypu that you thought the music he posted was boring, sooo.... that means you won't listen to his music because it doesn't fit your clear definition of "interesting". C'mon man, you can't expect that view to hold up. Everybody has stuff that they dislike. I also never said I wouldn't listen to something because of a genre, I was speaking specifically on the development of jazz, which is what this discussion is about. So music that doesn't fit the jazz genre doesn't belong in this discussion.

I really can't see how you can compare the two things. Coypu posted a sample. I listened. I didn't like it.

I really don't care what anyone wants to listen to, nor am I making any proclamations about that. Listen, if you want to be a 'jazz musician', go for it. If you want to limit your definition of a what is Jazz and play only that, go for it. My observations stand. Although they were only, in part, directed towards your comments. There are others who have made similar comments.

Jazz

January 23rd, 2003, 08:27 PM

If you want to limit your definition of a what is Jazz and play only that, go for it.

Okay, well, you define jazz for me then.

omar zamora

January 23rd, 2003, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Jazz

Okay, well, you define jazz for me then.

I'm not too interested in defining anything. Only in listening to creative music.

Like I said, if that's your thing, then do it. Don't worry about what my opinion is.

Jazz

January 23rd, 2003, 08:51 PM

Well, Omar, if you wanted to play a certain style of music you would have to define it. But, if you wanted to take a wholistic approach to music you would have to define everything even MORE. You see, you would have to understand every INCH of every style to be able to deconstruct it, and use just bits and pieces of it in your composition.

Definitions are not bad things.

omar zamora

January 23rd, 2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Jazz
Definitions are not bad things.

No. Not in and of themselves. I'm sure it's very useful when you're learning music to define parameters. I think they become problematic when they lead to dogmatism.

From my perspective, as a listener, it's a matter of economics and time management mostly.

Jazz

January 23rd, 2003, 09:07 PM

I think they become problematic when they lead to dogmatism.

Okay, so, did I display something you took for dogmatism?

bombastic

January 23rd, 2003, 09:07 PM

:rolleyes: Boy, Talk about a morass of words! this stuff if really tedious to read through! will you guys please stop bickering like old men in a bloody nursing home!:o :eek: :rolleyes:

Jazz

January 23rd, 2003, 09:09 PM

Bombastic, don't even make me point out that you don't have to read through it if you don't want.

Also, its valuable for me to understand Jazzypaul and Pharaohrock's viewpoint on the subject.

And, Charles Dickens has so far agreed with everything I said.

See:

omar zamora

January 23rd, 2003, 09:20 PM

Jazz,

I'm making general comments and observations of tendencies that I see around some boards. Even though they coincided with your specific comments, I was not directing them to you. No need to get defensive.

BariMusix

January 23rd, 2003, 09:24 PM

If you want to limit your definition of a what is Jazz and play only that, go for it. My observations stand.

1. I have posted some of my views on what Jazz is in this BBS and so has Jazz but I don't recall anyone else (Let me know if I'm wrong, I'm not perfect). What I do recall is people jumping on Jazz (aside form the civil conversations with JazzyPaul) for posting what he thinks Jazz is. I have some questions. Is Jazz Viennese Waltz? Is Jazz Techno? Is Jazz Irish Jigs? Is Jazz Atonal 12 tone? If jazz is not these things, did Jazz borrow things and if so what did it borrow? Is Jazz a mystical force that no one wants to touch or learn because it will destroy their mystical views on jazz? Is Jazz everything yet nothing?
It's easy to sit back and agrue with everthing. It's easy to argue using open ended statements.
2. If people create something why can't they expain what they created? I applaud JazzyPaul, Jazz, Pharaorock, and even Coypu for sticking to what they believe to be true, argue, and attempt to see the others point of view, and if need agree to disagree.
If you don't understand something, that's your choice, but please don't say: "If you want to limit your definition of a what is Jazz" because you don't want to understand it.

Pharaohrock

January 23rd, 2003, 09:33 PM

Well, I've missed a lot and I'm sitting here rather pooped from my Astronomy class.....but anywho, I just wanted to reply in brief to a few points that have been made recently.

No. 1 is Jazz's notion that music of the past can stand apart from its time if only we exert a conscious drive not to take a lot of associational baggage into how we perceive it. On this point he said:

What is it about the actual structure of the music, the harmonies, tonalities, improvisational techniques that NATURALLY implies black and white movies? I mean, what does that have to do with anything?

Well, what I would argue to Jazz and the rest of the forum is that our basic sensibilities change for what we want from music, and this after all is why things become outdated or seem old-fashioned, corny. In other words, I don't think the happy-go-lucky emotional quality of much of 30s swing music relates at all to the psychology of people today, but one can bet that it certainly related to the mood of this country at that time. And it's not just that we happened to feel a certain way at a certain time, not an arbitrary relationship....it's moreover, that we began this century with rather naive sensibilities overall and have tended to evolve (not linear, but tended) in the complexity of the collective psyche over the past century. I look at the 20th century as virtually identical to a child's growing up, culminating in the awkward adolescence of the 60s to the post-adolescent cynicism of the 70s and so on. It's not that cut and dried I now but I do feel there's a valid analogy to personal growth with the way this country has evolved in mood, psyche.

So we're not going to be happy-go-lucky again, and I personally think that's a good thing. These manifestations of psyche are far from confined to music too. Look at humor from the 30s.....corny, corny, corny= and speaking to much SIMPLER sensibilities. Or the love yarns that dominated the silver screen....again, one can't help but be struck by the naivete in the sensibilities involved.

But let me say that I do think there are things which transcend their own time......they are just definitely the exception and not the rule. I think of some of the Art Deco design from the 20s and 30s- it's still amazingly visionary and sophisticated design no matter how you compare it to what came afterward. Or Charlie Chaplin= a genius in any time period. Pantomine doesn't date itself though because it's such a universal language. And some, but not all, of Ellington's music strikes me the same way.

So by no means do I think music of the past is uniformly confined to its time in terms of it being relevant.....I just think you have to be selective in terms of what's still going to resonate with people and what speaks to an outdated sensibility. Duke Ellington's "In a Sentimental Mood" still speaks with a helluva lot of resonance. Glenn Miller's "In the Mood" does not. It's the difference between a "timeless classic" and a "nostalgic classic." A lot of times there is a fine line too....

Pharaohrock

January 23rd, 2003, 09:35 PM

Bombastic, I have to say at the risk of starting some kind of lil' sandbox fight, you're definitely starting to live up to your name.

omar zamora

January 23rd, 2003, 09:38 PM

Alright, whatever. You guys do what you want. Like I said, it's that I don't believe in definitions, it's that personally I (meaning me) don't care for too precise definitions.

I think it's obvious that Viennese Waltz is not Jazz. Is Braxton's ghost trance music jazz? Evan Parker? How about Joe McPhee playing with DJ Spooky? CoDoNa? Is Gerry Hemingway's electro-acoustic work Jazz?

Personally, I'd rather not worry about it.

bombastic

January 23rd, 2003, 09:47 PM

pharoah- you mean regarding what i said about a morass a words? you don't agree? just my humble thoughts. we're just discussing music here, no need to get upset.

jazzypaul

January 23rd, 2003, 09:49 PM

Good to see that things stay lively while I'm away...Now to blow the roof off the sucka, one point at a time. There's a lot that I'm not going to cover, if only because I don't want to write a novel this evening. But, if I know the interest is there, I might be willing to. The hardcover will be $18.95, and there will be a book signing at the Green Mill next week. Be there, or be better off without it...

I don't think thats what is happening. This is a largely uneducated theory, so you can dismiss it if you want, but its been my increasing impression since I've been learning more and more. AND like I said, I may change my opinions when I have learned more. This is what I think happened: I think everybody took the path of least resistance with jazz, because lets face it: straight ahead is HARD. Its way easier to criticize straight ahead's legitimacy as a style or its relevance to our modern society than it is to actually play it without sounding like a crappy musician.

well, I would NEVER tell anyone not to learn how to play every style of jazz out there. And you know what? I could give a shit if you don't like it. From Dixieland to Free Jazz, it's all part of the history, and in this day and age, only an asshole who wants to turn down work would even think of not knowing how to play every style competently. And I agree, all of the basics are straight ahead. And yes, you should be able to dance around Cherokee changes before you even consider moving on. We don't disagree here, at all. I think where there may be disagreement or confusion is here: What is straight ahead? If this is only Blue Note/Prestige/Riverside stuff recorded between 1955-70, then, not only do we disagree, but I am forced to hold back all sorts of terrible things that I will save for Coypu at some point. But, on the other hand, if we agree that straight ahead is another word for mainstream jazz, then great jazz is being made to this day by the likes of Dave Holland, Dave Douglas, Joshua Redman, Kenny Garrett and Chris Potter. If this is indeed the case, then the idea of not moving forward is null and moot. So, at that point, the definition and the shape of this conversation is entirely in your hands. But to say that these entirely talented musicians aren't as talented, groundbreaking or listenable as their 60's counterparts would be the talk of absolute foolery (and herein I think lies our problem. you just haven't heard the best in modern jazz yet. You're still young, you're allowed)

As for being old fashioned, in certain things, it IS a stigma to be avoided. Find me a modern painter who is being applauded for painting like Monet. Or a comedian who is taken seriously doing material a la Bob Newhart. It won't happen. Art learns from its past, and constantly moves forward. Yes, there are repetoiry orchestras, but that's what they are, and that's what they remain. But the best, and the most respected, and the ones that SHOULD be the most respected are the artists who steal like theives in the night and make it all into a mixture that is far more original than originally planned. As for your thought about Classical recitals, I think it should be a capitol crime that these orchestras don't throw in a Reich or a Glass or an Adams or even a Zappa along with the Brahms, Bach and Mozart. This is all music that people have been duped into thinking they don't want to hear. But listen to shaker loops or any of Reich's work. And tell me that it doesn't deserve to be heard. Because it does. And so, if you want your kids to dispense with the idea of things being old fashioned, then fine. But your kid will be Scott Hamilton, and mine will be Seamus Blake. I know which one I'd go see...

As for Metheny's jazz content, you gotta decide that on your own. But there's a reason why he's the single most respected neo-fusion guy out there.

And as for the thought that people who like Zorn are already pre-disposed to more adventurous music may or may not be true. I wasn't exactly climbing the walls looking for musical revelation when Bitches Brew got dumped on me. And I know I've turned a few like minded people around with Zorn, Mingus, fusion-era Miles and others. It happens. Have faith my friend. Not all is as bad as it seems. Our PR is as bad as it seems, but people are not as bad as they seem.

I write too much.

Pharaohrock

January 23rd, 2003, 09:51 PM

I agree with Omar though that we do fetishize the genre term "jazz". It's definitely more the fans, critics and institutions than the musicians themselves though.

What's funny is that often the cats we bicker over (whether they should be brought under the Jazz umbrella) could care less whether they are called "jazz musicians" or not. And usually a wholesome, expansive musician isn't going to have a lot of attachment to any particular genre in the first place.

By the same token however, there is a prestige in the word Jazz and all of the history that goes with that term that I think is compelling to many musicians. There are some out musicians for example who are always fighting the rhetorical wars to prove their music is actually a valid extension of "Jazz". And for every one there's a Wynton-minded traditionalist waiting to block the door. So be it. I think, in contrast to Jazz (the poster), that the music benefits from the dialogue brought about by these contentious arguments. But in many cases the question is never going to be resolved anyway. Not just because of subjectivity but because we really have such limited historical perspective on all the developments that have taken place- REMEMBER FOLKS, THIS MUSIC'S ONLY BEEN AROUND FOR ABOUT 100 YEARS. In this sense, arguing endlessly over what is and isn't Jazz has no small dose of futility in it.

BariMusix

January 23rd, 2003, 09:58 PM

To Omar,
Look, what I was trying to get across is don't say someone is limiting themselves if you don't want to debate it. I can and do respect the way you look at things and I hope you can feel the same about me, but please don't say someones views are limited because they want to define something. Our views and defintions can change or be revised and many times do.

omar zamora

January 23rd, 2003, 10:08 PM

Pharaoh, good post.

Bari, I didn't say anyone's views were limited. I said strictly defining an artistic language such as Jazz CAN be limiting. I understand labelling is necessary in order to communicate. If what you say about allowing definitions to change over time, then good.

bombastic

January 24th, 2003, 01:49 PM

I apologize for being impolite fellas. keep talking jazz with open minds. peace.:cool:

Jazz

January 25th, 2003, 03:04 AM

Bombastic,

No prob man, keep on keepin on!

Pharoahrock,

In argument to my assertions that it is possible to cast off associational baggage while listening to music and that music doesn't naturally imply most of the associations we give it (i.e. if listeners didn't already know that classical musicians wore powdered wigs, classical music would not somehow impart that knowledge to them) you said that modern sensibilities are different than old ones and said:

In other words, I don't think the happy-go-lucky emotional quality of much of 30s swing music relates at all to the psychology of people today, but one can bet that it certainly related to the mood of this country at that time.

Thank you for proving my point. There is NOTHING about the swing music from the 30's, nothing about the actual MUSICAL content, and in this case, nothing even in the lyrics of the songs that somehow mystically imparts the knowledge to you that America was in its worst economic depression that it had ever seen. With something like 1/4 of the entire country's population out of work, I can pretty much gaurantee that the mood of this country was not "happy go lucky". By your reasoning, I should listen to 30's music when I'm most depressed because of association, since so many horrible things were happening while the music was being created. Actually, with the historical knowledge presented to you, you might want to consider that there may have been a hidden and deep cynicism in what you percieve to be the happy go lucky-ness of the music. You have taken that music and reinterpreted it in a modern context instead of taking it for what it meant back then, and decided it doesn't speak to you, which also proves my point. Someone else can take that music and evaluate it in their own life and possibly find it relevant. My point is this: any music of real validity can speak to modern people regardless of when it was made, as long as the listeners have enough presence of mind to cast off notions of "cheesy", "corny", or "old" and listen to the music on its own terms. Music as an artform transcends time. Music as a novelty doesn't.

it's moreover, that we began this century with rather naive sensibilities overall and have tended to evolve (not linear, but tended) in the complexity of the collective psyche over the past century.

I'm sorry, but you MUST be talking about the media's portrayal of society, rather than what society was actually experiencing. Am I wrong?

Look at humor from the 30s.....corny, corny, corny= and speaking to much SIMPLER sensibilities.

Well, I'm not going to argue that modern society doesn't see 30's humor as corny, but simpler sensibilities? Watch some Marx Brothers films from the 30's and tell me if you still think that. If you're going to argue Laurel and Hardy, I will counter argue that they are making a sequel to Dumb and Dumber, that new film Just Married, and the scores of sappy films Robbin Williams likes to make. Besides, the existence of Marx Brothers films proves that heavy cynicism was prevailent, and earlier Chaplin films display not only cynicism but a sad sort of realism as well.

I think, in contrast to Jazz (the poster), that the music benefits from the dialogue brought about by these contentious arguments.

I never said the dialogue was bad, dialogue is good. The fact that we (jazz fans) can't bring ourselves to agree on anything is bad.

Jazzypaul,

What is straight ahead? If this is only Blue Note/Prestige/Riverside stuff recorded between 1955-70, then, not only do we disagree, but I am forced to hold back all sorts of terrible things that I will save for Coypu at some point.

Well, first of all, I don't know much about record labels and such, so I don't think I would try and define straight ahead through those kinds of things. Secondly, I told you I don't know enough to define straight ahead in the context of music theory, and I still don't. As far as time periods, I would definitely include the 40's, because I consider bop to be the birth of straight ahead.

And hey man, if you got horrible things to say about me, bring it. I am a thoughtful and at least marginally intelligent person, so I am confident of my opinions. I have also never ruled out the possibility that my opinions might change with the more I know.

(and herein I think lies our problem. you just haven't heard the best in modern jazz yet. You're still young, you're allowed)

We'll see. My strength is my ability to see past popular opinion on the subject. I don't care if EVERY single person I know tells me how valid something is, if I don't honestly see validity in it I will admit that to myself.

As for being old fashioned, in certain things, it IS a stigma to be avoided. Find me a modern painter who is being applauded for painting like Monet. Or a comedian who is taken seriously doing material a la Bob Newhart. It won't happen.

Okay, by that token, not too many people like or applaud modern jazz either. So what? What if a modern painter has something genuine to say in the impressionistic style? Should we ignore him? Or is the impressionistic idea of playing with the perception of light not a valid idea anymore? What if a comedian has a definite Bob Newhart style but he's really funny? We should try and decide not to laugh at his jokes I guess.

But your kid will be Scott Hamilton, and mine will be Seamus Blake. I know which one I'd go see...

No, my kid will be doing things that he thinks are valid aside from what the masses tell him to do. It could be Scott Hamilton OR Seamus Blake. It could be Bach or Rachmaninov, or it could be something completely new and different. And he wouldn't give a crap whether you preferred him or not.

But the best, and the most respected, and the ones that SHOULD be the most respected are the artists who steal like theives in the night and make it all into a mixture that is far more original than originally planned.

Okay, I think this is the main part where we differ. I don't hail originality as the sole purpose of art. I mean, if someone makes original crap, I'm still going to dislike it. I could find a dead cat, paint it green and hang it from a noose with a dollar and call it "economy killed the cat". As far as I know no one's done that, but I hope people wouldn't like it.

Okay, that's what I had to say. I just didn't want to end with arguing and negativity so here's something that Jazzypaul said:

Have faith my friend. Not all is as bad as it seems.

I sure hope not.

jazzypaul

January 25th, 2003, 04:18 AM

Alright, let's start things off on a clarification point, as to make sure that we're all happy little jazzsters that respect each other...

Well, first of all, I don't know much about record labels and such, so I don't think I would try and define straight ahead through those kinds of things. Secondly, I told you I don't know enough to define straight ahead in the context of music theory, and I still don't. As far as time periods, I would definitely include the 40's, because I consider bop to be the birth of straight ahead.

And hey man, if you got horrible things to say about me, bring it. I am a thoughtful and at least marginally intelligent person, so I am confident of my opinions. I have also never ruled out the possibility that my opinions might change with the more I know.

Duder, (1) Much as Jazz was broken up by stylistic eras, it's also broken up by schools. In time, it IS just as important to understand these schools as it is to understand the eras. What makes the ECM cats different from the CTI cats of the early 70's? What makes the free jazz players different from the avant-garde players? What makes up the Blue Note/Prestige school, and what made them similar. What made them different? Trust me, this stuff is all vastly important. No educated discussion of jazz, modern jazz or what separates them can REALLY be leveled without this knowledge. Seriously. I'm sure Pharaohrock and others would back me up on this. I only included the 55-70 period because that is the golden age of hard-bop, which is the style being regurgitated these days as "straight ahead."

(2) I didn't say I was going to swipe at you. I said I would swipe at you if you held such a narrow-minded opinion of jazz at such a young age that it can only truly cripple the music. And in order for you to hold that opinion, you would have to not like ANY modern jazz. I find that hard to believe.

(3) you never did answer my question though: "what are we considering straight ahead? This conversation is actually totally pointless without that label. But it needs examples both new and old. Without those parameters, we can't hold this conversation yet. It just becomes running around in circles.

As for you bringing up the Marx Brothers, they're the exception, not the rule. This is WHY they're remembered, and so many others aren't. (btw, Groucho is a personal hero) The fact that they were so cynical only makes them more relevant today. If you want to bring this to a musical level, yes, there are still musical acts from the 40's, 50's, and 60's that are still relevant today. But, much like the Marx Brothers, they were all cutting edge and ahead of their time. Ellington's writing, hell, on Money Jungle, Ellington's playing. Ornette's ideas and phrasing, Miles' approach and ideas, Coltrane's sound and playing style, etc, etc, etc were so revolutionary then that they're only of the time now.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled argument...

(and herein I think lies our problem. you just haven't heard the best in modern jazz yet. You're still young, you're allowed)

We'll see. My strength is my ability to see past popular opinion on the subject. I don't care if EVERY single person I know tells me how valid something is, if I don't honestly see validity in it I will admit that to myself.

So what have you heard, why haven't you liked it? More importantly, why be so defensive about it? You haven't heard stuff, that's fine. Hell, you may not like stuff, that too is fine. Just have the ability to outline those reasons. Even if they're on purely emotional levels. (we're all musically educated here. Telling me why you don't like the flatting of the 13th on the 4th bar of the bridge is superflous to an extent) But at least tell me what you're hearing that's so evil and what you've heard. I might be able to steer you in a more compatible direction, and I would much rather have Virginia believing in Santa Claus.

Okay, by that token, not too many people like or applaud modern jazz either. So what? What if a modern painter has something genuine to say in the impressionistic style? Should we ignore him? Or is the impressionistic idea of playing with the perception of light not a valid idea anymore? What if a comedian has a definite Bob Newhart style but he's really funny? We should try and decide not to laugh at his jokes I guess.

That's just it. Painters still painting in an impressionistic style would be immediately seen as throwbacks and will be selling their paintings at "emerging talent art blowouts" at Holiday Inns nationwide. Especially since the art world has gone through 5 or 6 stylistic periods since then. To not take those into account is to slap the major stylists of those eras right in the face. Because NO and I do mean NO area of artistic expression is without validity. If you can't find ANYTHING valid in a certain form or art or a certain era or style of art, then there is something wrong with YOU, not the artform. Is ALL rap bad? no. Is ALL pop music bad? No. Is ALL country bad? no. Is all modern composed music bad? no! It is wrong to think that it is, and my fear with you, Jazz, is that you have written it off without checking it out. At such a young age, that would be tragic. And I understand where you're coming from...the idea that you want to learn the classics first. But all work and no play makes jazz a dull boy. Go out and get dirty in the mud with the latest Mark Turner record. Roll around in the dirt with the latest Tomasz Stanko album. Skip through the lillies with the latest Chris Potter record. But don't leave it all behind in the name of the educational process. And know why you don't like it before you tear it apart. And know that before you tell everyone that you don't like it. Just try the green eggs and ham. You might just like them in a box, and you might just try them with a fox.

Again, writing too much. More later...

Pharaohrock

January 25th, 2003, 11:20 AM

Jazz, sorry to burst your bubble but I didn't prove your point at all. I should have clarified that I meant people wanted a "happy go lucky" feeling from their music in the 30s, not that everyone was always feeling happy-go-lucky....I am not so ignorant of American history to infer that because the music sounded this way, that everyone felt this way.....but certainly people wanted this from their music, if only as a kind of escapism from their reality.

The key thing I should add here though is that peoples' "sensibilities" for music are mediated by advancements in (applied) musical knowledge, and if you honestly want to tell me, for example, that the original showtune version of "Summertime" sounds anywhere near as advanced as Coltrane's version of it on My Favorite Things, then I guess there really is no point after all to having this conversation.

People's sensibilities evolve because music, generally speaking - evolves. And that, I believe, is not is a revelation beyond a casual inventory of the way jazz progressed to 1965. Does this mean music from the 30s is invalid? NO. Does it mean that there's nothing for us to learn from music way back when? NO. But does it mean that there might after all be a concrete reason why music sounds the way it does today rather than it the 30s, beyond the notion we just shrug off everything that sounds "old-fashioned" because we're all so shallow???

YES, YES, YES. It's called evolution man. Evolution in our information and evolution in the kind of complexity we are able to perceive in music. Stravinsky is DEEPER than Mozart. Not "better", but DEEPER, oh yes...

And if you won't accept this idea on faith alone- just take a big look around you on the music scene today.....there isn't a big movement to revive Baroque music because it's just not very interesting the way we hear things anymore. Ditto the early Jazz of the 20s....both of these musics seem simpleminded by today's terms, and I don't believe that's simply a value judgement. They are music forms with a LOT more predictable architecture. Don't mean there's nothing to take from it= does mean that there probably isn't this perfect equity of all music from all times that Jazz would like to believe in.

Which leads me to this....why are you pushing this so hard Jazz? Part of me thinks you're just predisposed to being contrary and I can relate to that. Moreover though, I don't mean to be condescending, but I actually went through a phase where I too questioned why we wrote off music of the past as old-fashioned/corny/etc. It seemed arbitrary to me as well.....I also felt in my contrary streak, that the modern jazz and avant cats were being dogmatic/oppressive in their criticisms and that the fight was worth fighting even if I wasn't sure why their criticisms were wrong.

What finally changed my mind however wasn't being influenced that older music was indeed old fashioned/corny, etc, it was in actually taking the opportunity to listen to some of the things that had going on for the past 20 years....prior to this I had been the cliched jazz fan who only listened up to Coltrane and tended to focus on hard bop(Blakey was my god.).....but I checked out things like Pat Metheny's trio (with Roy Haynes and D. Holland), I checked out Kenny Garrett, Steve Coleman, Greg Osby......and you know what???

I know it sounds like a sweeping denial of your argument to say this, but they "spoke to me" as a person of this era a lot more than Blakey 1964: "Mosaic", or Ellington's bands, or even Massey Hall, ever did....doesn't mean they're making music as "classic" but taken on a criteria of aesthetic relevance, I'm FEELING them a lot more. I didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater and say "Hey, hell with Blakey- I found the Tony Williams band!!!" but listening to musicians of the contemporary era has just kind of naturally resulted in my listening to "classic" jazz less. I'm listening to Osby "Inner Circle" as I write this.....and wouldn't have it any other way.

I realize a lot of this generational relevancy is contingent on how much one really gets exposed to all the different influences in our larger culture today though. For example, you're probably not going to be able to relate to Steve Coleman's aesthetic if you've never listened to ANY hip-hop music, or moreover- if you've had scant few interactions with urban African-American youth....I grew up in a very integrated environment though, so a lot of the "melting pot music" of today makes a whole lot of sense to me- seems like a natural. ANd then I listen to Vijay Iyer, and I hear some of Coleman's concepts being re-filtered through this cat who as an Indian immigrant, grew up with traditional Indian music playing in the house.

Ever-increasing interaction and dialogue between musicians of different cultural backgrounds is a distinct possibility today, and greater interaction symbolizes so many things beyond just the music= like globalization, living in an integrated society, et al. Obviously the music is the most important thing, but when the music has an aesthetic that's based upon some key components of TODAY's social reality, it makes it that much more relevant.

Did I make my case abundantly clear yet?? lol. I hope you don't feel that I'm talking down to you, I just think, in all honesty that you're making an argument that doesn't have a lot of credibillity unless you've really made an honest effort to survey the scene today and post-1965 for that matter.

Based on one response you gave to who "failed visionaries of the past 20 years" were......you only said 3 or 4 names, and included Miles (he knew he wasn't a real visionary at that point dude), as well as your lack of input generally on current artists, I'm inclined to think that you haven't really done this. I tend to err with JazzyPaul on this. Maybe I'm wrong, and if I am- I'm sorry, but I think it's important that you level with the forum about how much of today's jazz you've actually listened to if you're going to make your argument as self-assuredly as you have.

For my part, I've certainly done my time listening to older music, so my opinions of Big Band music from the 20s aren't based on second-hand knowledge (well, second-hand from hearing on a cd player and not being there in person perhaps!)

Peace and all o dat

PHARoah

Jazz

January 25th, 2003, 07:17 PM

Weeeelll

I could refute arguments, but that would just lead in the same circle. What I will do is try to explain my views. I DO feel like I understand how you guys think alot more than I was understanding it.

So, what I'm going to do is just try to explain what I percieve to be the differences in how we look at things. I also want to explain that these things are things I have decided to do by instinct and not conscious analyzation. I also trust my instincts on music to a large degree.

1) When I'm analyzing and listening to music I completely ignore
time frame and historical context. Its not that I'm not interested in the history, I often am very interested in the history of a style that I really like. Its just that the history doesn't have anything to do with the way I hear music today. I'm not going to try and imagine what it was like in Rachmaninov's time so I can hear it the way someone back then would hear it. If I decide that the actual musical content has things that I look for in music, I consider it relevant. Needless to say, 30's swing music honestly doesn't conjure up images of black and white movies and such. I am actually just listening to the music.

2) My passion is straight ahead jazz. (I haven't defined it yet, I will address that to Jazzypaul). Its the music I naturally fell in love with. I listened to all sorts of music for a while, then decided I liked the indie label rock stuff, then straight ahead blindsided me so hard that all of a sudden I knew I wanted to be a jazz musician. So, yeah, I NEVER found any of the modern hip hop jazz, fusion, or funk-groove jazz to be to my liking. Did you hear that? All that stuff that's supposed to relate to my modern sensibilities didn't.

3) I don't believe in musical evolution. I think that music can only be seen as "advanced" in two ways: 1. It uses the most modern technology available; 2. It can be viewed as "advanced" in a certain context, that context being criteria picked by the individual, or by society as to what they want to hear. Note that the individual's criteria may be different as to what the majority's opinion is.

Now I will speak to some specific questions/statements.

Jazzypaul,

you never did answer my question though: "what are we considering straight ahead? This conversation is actually totally pointless without that label. But it needs examples both new and old. Without those parameters, we can't hold this conversation yet.

I told you I couldn't define it. My answer is "My brain doesn't know, but my ears do." But hey if you want an excuse to belittle me, I CAN tell you that I have spent all my time studying jazz in the old recordings of the time period 1940 to the mid 1960's. That's the music I fell in love with. So come on, bring it. Tell me how I'm impeding the progress of jazz and all that. You aren't justified in saying that, because I have never told you that you are stupid for listening to what you listen to, playing what you play, and I have also tried to respect your opinions on the subject. On the other hand, I'm being close minded for liking outdated music more than the newer stuff. So bring it.

So what have you heard, why haven't you liked it? More importantly, why be so defensive about it? You haven't heard stuff, that's fine. Hell, you may not like stuff, that too is fine. Just have the ability to outline those reasons. Even if they're on purely emotional levels. (we're all musically educated here. Telling me why you don't like the flatting of the 13th on the 4th bar of the bridge is superflous to an extent) But at least tell me what you're hearing that's so evil and what you've heard. I might be able to steer you in a more compatible direction, and I would much rather have Virginia believing in Santa Claus.

Evil? When did I say that? All I said is that I am against bastardizing jazz with novelty music. Novelty music is usually not art music. If you disagree, then tell me that all those old white dixieland bands still stand up as good jazz today. Tell me that Louis Armstrong's later recordings are good jazz. You won't, because that music was made as a novelty and nothing more. If the music you like is not novelty music, then there are no problems.

I am defensive because I detected that my views were being accused of "holding jazz back". I have heard alot of fusion over the years, before I was even into jazz, and I was never interested enough to find out who was playing it. So, obviously, my natural personal taste has never been in that direction. I still haven't actually studied fusion yet, and when I do that I will either find things I like about it that I didn't or couldn't hear before, or I will confirm my original instinct.

Okay, now I will defend myself against the accusation of being narrow minded.

I didn't say I was going to swipe at you. I said I would swipe at you if you held such a narrow-minded opinion of jazz at such a young age that it can only truly cripple the music.

After everything I've said, I doubt you can really think you are justified at calling me narrow-minded. If anything, people like me are going to be the ones to save jazz as a style. Now that everyone and their dog claimes to be playing jazz, there needs to be people who understand the old styles virtuosically. We want to go back to the roots of the music and truly understand them before we get all in a hurry to advance beyond our skill and comprehension. You may not like our opinions, or our outlook on music, but you need us. Narrow minded? I look at music outside of the common stereotypes before I decide that it isn't relevant to me. On the other hand, you guys are advancing concepts of "corny", "cheesy", "safe", "stale", and "old" as to why you think Wynton Marsalis is doing the music an injustice, and why you think he isn't relevant to the "modern" state of mind. Even with fusion, which I don't like, I haven't said that it is irrelevant to what I want to do. When I actually look at the music and study it, that's when I will decide what I really think of it. Right now all I know is that I don't like it.

Bottom line, if you don't like my opinions, fine. But if I haven't proven to you yet that I am a thoughtful person and not just someone who bases my opinions on knee jerk reactions, then I never will, and I can just lurk on this forum like I used to. Calling me close minded because I feel that the old style of jazz is what I relate to best, and that its the best place to start developing is a good way of being a music snob.

Jazz

January 25th, 2003, 07:18 PM

Pharaohrock,

I know it sounds like a sweeping denial of your argument to say this, but they "spoke to me" as a person of this era a lot more than Blakey 1964: "Mosaic", or Ellington's bands, or even Massey Hall, ever did....doesn't mean they're making music as "classic" but taken on a criteria of aesthetic relevance, I'm FEELING them a lot more. I didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater and say "Hey, hell with Blakey- I found the Tony Williams band!!!" but listening to musicians of the contemporary era has just kind of naturally resulted in my listening to "classic" jazz less. I'm listening to Osby "Inner Circle" as I write this.....and wouldn't have it any other way.

That's all I had to hear. If those are the cats that truly speak to you, then go for it! But, you need to acknowledge that not everyone is like you. There are still people who find the older stuff supremely relevant to their lives.

Did I make my case abundantly clear yet?? lol. I hope you don't feel that I'm talking down to you, I just think, in all honesty that you're making an argument that doesn't have a lot of credibillity unless you've really made an honest effort to survey the scene today and post-1965 for that matter.

I think you've made your case clear, and I want to thank you for being polite. And, I get bombarded by "modern" jazz quite a bit. I don't know alot of names, because, like I said, it never interested me enough to actually go check the cats out. But I feel that I've heard enough to say that I don't like it.

Based on one response you gave to who "failed visionaries of the past 20 years" were......you only said 3 or 4 names, and included Miles (he knew he wasn't a real visionary at that point dude), as well as your lack of input generally on current artists, I'm inclined to think that you haven't really done this. I tend to err with JazzyPaul on this. Maybe I'm wrong, and if I am- I'm sorry, but I think it's important that you level with the forum about how much of today's jazz you've actually listened to if you're going to make your argument as self-assuredly as you have.

Okay, that sounds fair enough, so what I will do is find examples of quotes from other posts that admits that I am not the most knowledgeable person on modern jazz, and that I allow for change in my opinion.

Originally posted by Jazz
Well, not only do I NOT hear alot of "jazz" in the modern style of music, I have also professed that my opinion may change in the future with the more I learn. What more can you ask of me than that?

Originally posted by Jazz
Where did I say Wynton was the future? I said he was PERPETUATING jazz better than Metheny. Which I still think is true but I'm going to give you the chance to change my mind.

Originally posted by Jazz
But, I want you to tell me what ONE NEW style of jazz Metheny has stuck with for the past 5 or 6 years. And how many followers he has for his new movement. ONE cohesive style, and I might have to eat my words (which I will gladly do, if I do it in regard to finding new life in jazz music).

Originally posted by Jazz
I don't think thats what is happening. This is a largely uneducated theory, so you can dismiss it if you want, but its been my increasing impression since I've been learning more and more. AND like I said, I may change my opinions when I have learned more.

Originally posted by Jazz
Well, I will look into that and see whether or not I think it sounds connected enough to jazz to be called jazz, and whether I think it is musically valid.

Originally posted by Jazz
Dude you totally understimate me here. You are thinking that just because I disagree with you that I am close minded. I KNOW that what I want Metheny to play (whatever that is) has nothing to do with whether his music is valid, and whether or not it is jazz.

Originally posted by Jazz
I did not say that all music should be jazz, and that music that isn't jazz isn't valid, or that music can't be creative outside of jazz. I didn't even say that fusion isn't valid music, just that from what I've heard (which I have admitted over and over is not a TON) its not justifiable to call it jazz.

Hmm, it seems like not only have I been candid and completely forthcoming on how much modern jazz I've listened to, I've also left room for my opinions to change in time. I think this proves that a large portion of what I'm even saying is being ignored here. I don't know why you guys seem to think I'm so close minded, go read my old posts on this thread and tell me if you still think that. All you have to say is "Jazz you are being close minded" and I will totally leave you guys alone. I definitely don't want to be that guy on the forum that everyone hates.

bombastic

January 25th, 2003, 10:22 PM

"There are only 2 kinds of music, Good and Bad." Hey guys, do yourselves a favor and pick up the" ken burns jazz box set "and the "smithsonian collection of classic jazz." these are both available on compact disc and both cover the history of the music. there's great music from all the different eras in jazz. some of those swing tunes are fantastic, as is "birdland"by weather report and "tanya" by dexter gordon, the list is endless. something can be gleaned from all of this great music, and integrated into the current jazz musicians vocabulary of ideas and sound images. it's the same as if you were a film student, you would learn from studying the masters who went before you, just as they did. the old thing about standing on the shoulders of giants still holds true. i believe to be a true musician, you first must be a humble human being and realize that what you are able to communicate musically is a gift and should be treated with respect and a sense of humility. i can't explain just what good music is, but i know it when i hear it, and it doesn't have to be of any specific genre. the same holds true for the bad music. it doesn't matter when the music was recorded, you can hear the vibe right away- if it was made in 1932 by robert johnson and it's got feeling, what difference does it make? the feeling is what counts. just my humble viewpoint. I picked up a c.d. today by mc laughlin titled "remember shakti", it's not jazz, but the music is incredible, so it doesn't make any difference that it might be called "indian" music- i just refer to it as good music- now, barry manilow, that's another story, and i don't feel like getting sick now, so i'll finish up here- have a day fellas.

Pharaohrock

January 25th, 2003, 10:35 PM

you're righ bombast- "the feeling" is what counts. Unfortunately when people try to recreate the past as so many do today, "the feeling" usually eludes them.

Jazz

January 25th, 2003, 11:40 PM

Okay, here's what I'm trying to say in a nutshell. If some jazz musician convinced himself against his instincts to play straight ahead instead of modern, he would be just as lousy at it as I would be if I played modern jazz without having a real passion for it.

Pharaohrock

January 26th, 2003, 12:08 AM

perfectly true. though i'd add that some musicians are also quite curious about possibilities outside the conventional language, and others are simply not.

Jazz

January 26th, 2003, 12:20 AM

Yeah, but those cats are different. Building your own musical vocabulary and language is not only crazy difficult, its also very time consuming, and there's lots of other stuff besides music I want to learn. There's also no audience for it. Maybe in time, people will actually want to listen to atonal music, though. Who knows?

jazzypaul

January 26th, 2003, 12:43 PM

Jazz,

you're being so defensive at this point that you're seeing only that which does swipe at you, and nothing more. Please, read entire posts and please try to gain a deeper understanding of where we're coming from. Modern jazz by no means equals fusion. Yes, there is some modern jazz that is fusion, but I think that Kenny Garrett, Dave Douglas, Irvin Mayfield. Gregory Tardy and others would all feel terrible if you called their music fusion.

The thing is jazz, if you're going to make a stand like the one that you're making, you NEED to be able to define it. And again, taking a stand as hard-nosed as the one that you're taking, you need to define exactly what it is that you don't like. What don't you like about Lovano? Potter? Vandermark? Uri Caine? If you haven't taken the time to hear them, not only are you short changing some really great musicians, but you're short changing yourself as well.

Now, before you start feeling like I'm taking unnecessary swipes at you, read this ENTIRE quote again, not just what you copied...

I didn't say I was going to swipe at you. I said I would swipe at you if you held such a narrow-minded opinion of jazz at such a young age that it can only truly cripple the music. And in order for you to hold that opinion, you would have to not like ANY modern jazz. I find that hard to believe.

which was related to the following remark...

well, I would NEVER tell anyone not to learn how to play every style of jazz out there. And you know what? I could give a shit if you don't like it. From Dixieland to Free Jazz, it's all part of the history, and in this day and age, only an asshole who wants to turn down work would even think of not knowing how to play every style competently. And I agree, all of the basics are straight ahead. And yes, you should be able to dance around Cherokee changes before you even consider moving on. We don't disagree here, at all. I think where there may be disagreement or confusion is here: What is straight ahead? If this is only Blue Note/Prestige/Riverside stuff recorded between 1955-70, then, not only do we disagree, but I am forced to hold back all sorts of terrible things that I will save for Coypu at some point. But, on the other hand, if we agree that straight ahead is another word for mainstream jazz, then great jazz is being made to this day by the likes of Dave Holland, Dave Douglas, Joshua Redman, Kenny Garrett and Chris Potter. If this is indeed the case, then the idea of not moving forward is null and moot. So, at that point, the definition and the shape of this conversation is entirely in your hands. But to say that these entirely talented musicians aren't as talented, groundbreaking or listenable as their 60's counterparts would be the talk of absolute foolery (and herein I think lies our problem. you just haven't heard the best in modern jazz yet. You're still young, you're allowed)

So where am I wrong? Would you indeed be narrow minded if you AT SUCH A YOUNG AGE THAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER only listened to one era of one sub-genre of music? You bet your ass you would be. Would you be narrow minded if you didn't at least respect the musicians listed above, who are definitely playing mainstream jazz, NOT FUSION OF ANY SORT, and saying things within that format that have not been said yet? You bet your ass again. Would you be narrow minded if you defined your tastes as "x" without definining "x" or even defining the music that you don't like "y"? You bet your ass, Jazz.

I'm not saying any of this because I want to belittle you. Understand that, please. I am saying this, because I would hate to see such a literate, obviously well educated guy fall into the Scott Hamilton/Warren Vache/Harry Allen/Ken Peplowski school of thought and player just because you've read a little bit too much Stanley Crouch. INVESTIGATE before you solidify opinions. And, as said before, if you're going to take such a hard-nosed stance, you owe it not only to yourself, but also to your fellow jazz musicians who are trying to say something relevant, to know exactly what you're cheerleading and what you're denying. It'll only make you a better musician, and a more understanding artist in the long run.

Jazz

January 26th, 2003, 04:51 PM

The thing is jazz, if you're going to make a stand like the one that you're making, you NEED to be able to define it. And again, taking a stand as hard-nosed as the one that you're taking,

Okay, first of all, I'm not being hard nosed. You keep pushing that I haven't heard all of the guys you mention and I keep admitting it! Over and over and over again. I even went back and showed you parts of my old post where I admitted that I don't know enough to take a hard nosed stance. I keep saying that my opinion MAY change in the future, so drop it already.

you need to define exactly what it is that you don't like.

Originally posted by Jazz
I still haven't actually studied fusion yet, and when I do that I will either find things I like about it that I didn't or couldn't hear before, or I will confirm my original instinct.

Originally posted by Jazz
Even with fusion, which I don't like, I haven't said that it is irrelevant to what I want to do. When I actually look at the music and study it, that's when I will decide what I really think of it. Right now all I know is that I don't like it.

Two times in my last post Jazzypaul. Two times I said that I don't know exactly what I dislike about it, just that my ear doesn't like it. Twice I said I was going to study and look into it. That's only in the last post. Twice.

Modern jazz by no means equals fusion.

Really? All I've heard you guys talk about so far is fusing jazz with hip hop, fusing jazz with world music, fusing jazz with rock. If some of those guys you mentioned aren't trying to "fuse" jazz with other styles, then describe what THEIR vision is for the music and describe HOW they are advancing the music, and maybe I'll agree.

So where am I wrong? Would you indeed be narrow minded if you AT SUCH A YOUNG AGE THAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER only listened to one era of one sub-genre of music?

Where are you wrong? Are you kidding me? You are basically saying that I am narrow minded if I disagree with you! The TRUTH of the matter is, I would be narrow minded if I didn't HONESTLY allow for change in my opinions. Now, you can't know whether or not I'm saying that to protect myself from claims of close mindedness, or whether I'm being honest. But, if you were as open minded as you claim to be, you would give me the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not saying any of this because I want to belittle you. Understand that, please.

Jazzypaul, I'm a read between the lines kind of guy, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt here. Seriously.

Would you be narrow minded if you defined your tastes as "x" without definining "x" or even defining the music that you don't like "y"?

Dude, don't even go there. I have given more SPECIFIC and THOUGHTFUL criteria as to what I like in music than anyone else on this board.

I am saying this, because I would hate to see such a literate, obviously well educated guy fall into the Scott Hamilton/Warren Vache/Harry Allen/Ken Peplowski school of thought and player just because you've read a little bit too much Stanley Crouch.

Did I not say that I think for myself? Did I not say that if John freaking Coltrane clambered out of his coffin all decayed, came to my house, knocked on my door, and said "Metheny.......goooood", that I would still decide for myself? Do you not believe me?

I have never, EVER, read any Stanley Crouch. Never. What the hell does that guy know about anything? Why would I spend so much time learning music theory and analysis so I could hand over my brain to some freaking jazz critic? I don't even feel a desire to find out about critics opinions, record labels, OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LISTENING TO THE ACTUAL MUSIC. I don't even know who any of the people you listed up there ARE. Scott Hamilton can believe whatever he wants, these are conclusions I reached on my own.

You know what, I think I understand now. I am not only literate and well educated, but I'm a critical thinker, and a damn good one too. It just irks the crap out of you that someone like me can come to these conclusions all on his own.

Jazzypaul, what you don't seem to understand is that I am defensive because you are attacking me. You are acting as if I am saying that I am absolutely 100% right. You NEED me to be like that to fit your stereotype of other people that believe the same things that I do. But I'm not the one saying that, I have admitted that I don't know it all, I have admitted that I might see things differently with the more I learn. I have also said that EVEN THOUGH I DON'T LIKE FUSION, I'M STILL GOING TO STUDY IT. I also said I might find things I like about it that I couldn't hear before. Is that close minded? You need to open your eyes, because I am not the one pretending I am 100% right.

Notice at this point, we're not even talking about our views anymore. Notice that I am having to defend myself against statements that I feel are untrue, and that these things have to do with my personal capacity for open mindedness and critical thought. So now instead of talking about music, we are talking about MY supposed shortcomings.

Pharaohrock

January 26th, 2003, 05:10 PM

"I'm a critical thinker, and a damn good one too. It just irks the crap out of you that someone like me can come to these conclusions all on his own."

-And you're pretty humble too aren't you Jazz? Shit bro, you sound like me about 3 years ago. When I felt I wasn't getting proper respect/credit I went ahead and gave it to myself. lol= cheezy, cheezy...this is called childlike egocentrism my friend, and has no place in adult conversations even though it often works its way in anyhow. Sorry, but you're going off the hook now Jazz, and I think you need to stop speculating about everyone being agagainst you or JP trying to suppress the power of your brilliant critical thinking, and either deal with the implications of the argument you've made or just drop it. You've come out with some pretty strong views, and if you want to make such an argument you have to be more than willing to rebut everyone, not just cop-out with that "this is no fair!" crap.

jazzypaul

January 26th, 2003, 05:16 PM

Really? All I've heard you guys talk about so far is fusing jazz with hip hop, fusing jazz with world music, fusing jazz with rock. If some of those guys you mentioned aren't trying to "fuse" jazz with other styles, then describe what THEIR vision is for the music and describe HOW they are advancing the music, and maybe I'll agree.

It's not really fusion, though, when those elements are inserted into jazz. The problem that I have with "fusion" as a music is that the jazz is nowhere to be found. Steve Coleman, on the other hand, is playing something that is definitely jazz, with more flavor, so to speak, than fusion, from the hip-hop world. Hell, you could say the same thing for Jason Moran. My stuff, while we play rock tunes, is most definitely not fusion. I'm pretty sure you'd offend my entire band if you called us fusion. We're just taking contemporary songs and making them into jazz, not fusing it with rock. Vijay and Rudresh are two Indian cats who are definitely making jazz music, but were smart enough to bring in elements of their culture to their version of jazz music, which if anything, makes it sound more comfortable, because it sounds like these guys are playing THEIR music. It may have a little curry in it, but it's still collard greens all the way. I could care less if you like fusion or not, because the guys that I keep bringing up are most definitely NOT fusion. The guys that Pharaohrock talks about are most definitely NOT fusion. All I am saying is that you have repeatedly said that you have heard modern jazz that you don't like. What is it that you've heard that you don't like? That's all I want to know. Honestly.

As I said earlier, the last thing I want to do is to make you feel bad about all of this. I apologize if I have.

Jazz

January 26th, 2003, 05:22 PM

[edited to address to pharaohrock]

Hmm, well, maybe you have a point. Maybe I am just being over defensive. Maybe I should believe you that I am completely close minded and not intelligent enought to see the "light".

Except, wait a second. Hmm. I seem to be remembering something here. I never said YOU were stupid for believing what you believe. In fact, this whole conversation I've been trying to steer clear of the barbs you keep throwing at me. So, when I finally deal with them head on, you accuse me of being childish. Well, I challenge you to read my old posts objectively, and tell me if you really honestly don't feel that Jazzypaul was personally attacking me.

In fact, why don't you explain to me why you think I am so adamant about this position, even though I KEEP FREAKING SAYING THAT YES, I DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING, YES MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT AND MY OPINION WILL CHANGE IN THE FUTURE. Maybe you are upset because I just don't take your word for everything. How good of a critical thinker would I be if I did that? I think the fact that you are PRETENDING like I am saying that I am 100% right and that you are 100% wrong is a more childish and "egocentric" display than anything I've done so far.

Jazz

January 26th, 2003, 05:29 PM

Jazzypaul,

NOW we're talking again! Yay!

Okay, are differing views of fusion notwithstanding, I DO understand what you are saying, about the stigma of the STYLE of fusion and the IDEAL of fusion, which are different things in my opinion.

I could care less if you like fusion or not, because the guys that I keep bringing up are most definitely NOT fusion. The guys that Pharaohrock talks about are most definitely NOT fusion. All I am saying is that you have repeatedly said that you have heard modern jazz that you don't like. What is it that you've heard that you don't like? That's all I want to know. Honestly.

It just didn't speak to me the way straight ahead does. When I actually am at the point in my studies where I can define "fusion" better, maybe I will be able to better tell you exactly what turned me off. Right now I just know that I don't like it. Sorry that I can't go into detail.

But, as you've said there's a whole lot of cats out there that you don't consider to be fusion. I would disagree, because I have a broad definition of fusion. But to clarify, that's what I meant when I told you that you could possibly be someone who can play VALID fusion. I didn't mean the style of rock fusion from the 70's, I meant finding valid ways to fuse other music to jazz. I hope that clarifies where I'm coming from.

jazzypaul

January 26th, 2003, 05:46 PM

Just asking as to clarify...is this to say that at this point, you consider all modern jazz to be a fusion of some sort?

Jazz

January 26th, 2003, 06:03 PM

I consider any jazz that tries to keep a recognizable element of an another entire genre of music to be fusion. And no, I'm not against the idea. After all, that's where we got latin jazz, and I think latin jazz is beautiful. In fact, I think latin jazz is a great example of good fusion. You can totally hear the connection to latin rhythm, but it is still heavliy improvised over. So, that's the rub, then, is making sure that you are still heavily improvising, even though you are still trying to make the music sound connected to another style.

jazzypaul

January 26th, 2003, 06:06 PM

So, in cases of modern jazz, where I'm not necessarily hearing anything else but jazz, outside of maybe a wink or a nudge to here and there, would you consider that straight ahead?

Jazz

January 26th, 2003, 06:24 PM

I would have to hear it, since I don't have my straight ahead definitions worked out (though my ears would know), but I would probably consider it a development of straight ahead, which is probably something I would really like.

You see though, I don't completely understand straight ahead (40's - 60's) yet, and I am guessing that it will take me 5-10 years to be virtuosic at it. Even with that estimate, I am placing quite a bit of faith in my abilities, so I acknowledge that. That will be the point where I will naturally feel the inclination to add to the music, either stylistically or with specific ideas that occur to me.

jazzypaul

January 26th, 2003, 07:05 PM

So is that all you're listening to seriously at this point? stuff from the 40's-60's? Wow, you're more nuts than Bird. Let's hope it has the same effect.

Jazz

January 26th, 2003, 07:21 PM

Its not all I'm listening to seriously, its all I'm listening to period. Its not that I don't like other types of music, or that I think other types of music are necessarily inferior. Its just that I want to learn this style as quickly as possible without compromising my understanding of it. Therefore, I have completely immersed myself in it.

As for it having the same effect as bird, I guess only time will tell.

Pharaohrock

January 26th, 2003, 07:54 PM

Jazz, this isn't a mere battle of wills, or at least it shouldn't be. I don't think Jazzypaul thinks he's 100% right and that you're 100% wrong at all. It's your defensive interpretation of things that causes you to see the current debate in such extremes of win/lose, black/white ..... it's understandable that you are defensive though because you don't really have any allies in this, and your argument is being attacked from multiple parties. If you think we're being oppressive- just say so but please underline the reasons why rather than just resigning yourself to the situation.

In any event, if your criteria for acceptable fusing of different music elements to jazz is "heavy improvising", why don't you go and check out Greg Osby's new joint Inner Circle?? If that isn't heavy improvising, then I've honestly got no clue whatsoever where you're coming from...

Jazz

January 26th, 2003, 08:54 PM

I don't think Jazzypaul thinks he's 100% right and that you're 100% wrong at all.

That's not what I said. Here's what I said:

Originally posted by Jazz
Jazzypaul, what you don't seem to understand is that I am defensive because you are attacking me. You are acting as if I am saying that I am absolutely 100% right.

See? Stop trying to twist my words, it doesn't work on a forum where all I have to do is quote myself. I felt that Jazzypaul has been acting, until recently, like I'm not admitting that my opinions may change with the more I know.

It's your defensive interpretation of things that causes you to see the current debate in such extremes of win/lose, black/white

Its curious to me that offensive little barbs can be thrown out into the conversation, and that you still feel justified in calling me defensive. Of course I'm defensive. I'm also not seeing this in terms of win/lose, where did you get that idea? Why are you making things up?

If you think we're being oppressive- just say so but please underline the reasons why rather than just resigning yourself to the situation.

Okey doke.

Unless you are defining my defensiveness as defending my arguments (and if you really are defining that way, then why would you want to debate with anyone?), If you go back and read my posts you will realize I started getting defensive around the time Jazzypaul said this:

Originally posted by Jazzypaul
What is straight ahead? If this is only Blue Note/Prestige/Riverside stuff recorded between 1955-70, then, not only do we disagree, but I am forced to hold back all sorts of terrible things that I will save for Coypu at some point.

Then I told him that if he had something to say, then bring it. Then he said:

I didn't say I was going to swipe at you. I said I would swipe at you if you held such a narrow-minded opinion of jazz at such a young age that it can only truly cripple the music.

Then, on the heels of that, in your post, you said this:

I'm sorry, but I think it's important that you level with the forum about how much of today's jazz you've actually listened to if you're going to make your argument as self-assuredly as you have.

Knowing full well, that I have been NOTHING but forthcoming about THAT subject, you still deemed it fit to type it into your computer and send it.

So, obviously, I felt pretty attacked, and so would you (don't deny it: "well Pharaohrock, if you REALLY think that way, I'll just have to hold back all the terrible things I will be thinking about you.") So I defended myself, and the rest is as they say, history.
Jazzypaul and I have backed off and are being friendly again. Which brings me to my next point:

What was that last post all about? I mean, are you trying to start some more conflict here? Do you really want to be right about this or something? Dragging all this up after its passed by does not seem like the most mature thing to do, especially from a guy that accused ME of being the one who wants to "win".