By implication Jazz, your argument means...

[Pharaohrock]

If any music that seeks to fuse another genre of music to straight-ahead jazz cannot be REAL jazz, then

-Latin Jazz, from Dizzy's band to David Sanchez= INVALID.

-Coltrane, his modal music heavily influenced by Indian music= INVALID.

-Miles, in bringing in rock meters to an acoustic jazz band (the 2nd Quintet)= INVALID.

Miles, Sketches of Spain= INVALID.

- Charlie Parker, in seeking to reconcile the influence Stravinsky had on him with his own music= INVALID.

And so on...

The problem with this kind of argument is one is seldom aware of just how long the limb is one is going out on. Do you really want to make this argument Jazz? Because today's examples of genre-fusing in jazz, from Dave Douglas to Marc Cary to Sam Newsome, are really no less valid than the examples just mentioned. They're not minimizing the core jazz content any more than Coltrane did in playing raga-like modal pieces or Dizzy in adopting the rhumba for his big bands....

But as for the Wynton/Crouch/Murray definition that includes "Hispanola rhythm", why is a latin beat any more valid in the context of fusing with Jazz than a hip-hop or go-go beat??? Because there's more historical precedence for it? Because of Congo Square and Jelly Roll Morton? Bullshit. People forgot about those rhythms for some time except in the rare novelty piece. It actually took Latins coming here and playing with jazz musicians to remind us of our own heritage in that respect.

I will be interested to hear your response on this one Jazz. I personally think you're cutting more music out than you realize by making this argument, but maybe there are some finer points to it that you have yet to mention....

[Coypu]

So to go even further, why can you add thoose beats and influences and not Death Metal? It seems like other styles seems ok but not this one... Weird.

[Pharaohrock]

I should have known you'd see this as an opportunity...lol.

[jazzypaul]

The funky thing about jazz is that it is always of the moment. The best jazz that we think of ALWAYS fuses elements of its present with that which is inherently jazz. From Pops singing risque tunes in the 20's and 30's to Lee Morgan's The Sidewinder to Dave Douglas' The Infinite, the albums that have made lasting impressions have always been of their time, and have taken their time into consideration.

Coypu, the most ridiculous, yet true way to answer your question is honestly this: Jazz is an African-American art form. The fusion that has always worked best (save for some exceptions that I'll get to in a second) have always blended jazz with a form of music that is "black" in nature. The best fusion is rarely rock/jazz fusion as much as it is R&B/Jazz fusion. Bitches Brew might have been a rock/fusion album, but that rock was straight out of Hendrix, not straight out of The Beach Boys. Therefore, taking an genre of music that is about as "white" as it gets (no sense of groove, mostly triadic chords) isn't going to make for good fusion. It makes for an interesting sub-genre of death metal, to be sure, but it's not fusion in the jazz sense. Personally, I find Holdsworth and Tribal Tech to be much more in line with the most "proggy" of prog-rock, but it's not really jazz in the sense that even Miles' 70's work, or Freddie Hubbard's CTI work truly is.

[Coypu]

Seems like I'm mostly into White music, never thought of it like that before but it all makes sense. I usually dislike most "black" music so yeah, that could be the explanation.

[Pharaohrock]

Copyu, your act is getting old my friend. Just what exactly do you hope to prove here?? Nobody is listening bro. Sorry, that's just the reality of it plain and simple.

[Coypu]

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
Copyu, your act is getting old my friend. Just what exactly do you hope to prove here?? Nobody is listening bro. Sorry, that's just the reality of it plain and simple.

It was a realisation of nothing yet missunderstood.

[Jazz]

Man, if there is a thread that convinced me that you guys TOTALLY don't know what you are talking about it is this one. Not even mentioning the fact that you started a whole thread just to flame me...

why is a latin beat any more valid in the context of fusing with Jazz than a hip-hop or go-go beat???

Latin beat? What is a latin beat? Latin music is about at least 3 or 4 layers of complex hemiola's. That fact opens the door for heavy rhythmic improvisation, while still keeping a recognizable latin feel.

A "hip hop beat", as far as I know, is a pretty static feel. BUT if a musician can find a way to heavily improvise hip hop rhythms, as in MOMENT TO MOMENT decisions of when to play, then yes I would agree that a hip hop fusion could retain a core element of jazz.

WHAT I AM AGAINST, AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AGAINST IS FUSING JAZZ WITH NOVELTY MUSIC. Novelty music is music that is made by using simple rhythmic and harmonic patterns that as soon as any variation is introduced, the style will be unrecognizable. This would mean limiting jazz to certain simple rhythmic AND harmonic AND possibly even melodic patterns to keep the style grounded in the novelty, and bridling the supremely improvisational nature of jazz.

Originally posted by Coypu
So to go even further, why can you add thoose beats and influences and not Death Metal? It seems like other styles seems ok but not this one... Weird.

Without my definition and limitation of novelty music, your argument leaves you wide open to death-jazz. Yet, somehow you guys aren't agreeing with him on the very valid statement he made in relation to your post. I find this not only puzzling but extremely inconsistent.

Originally posted by Jazzypaul
Coypu, the most ridiculous, yet true way to answer your question is honestly this: Jazz is an African-American art form. The fusion that has always worked best (save for some exceptions that I'll get to in a second) have always blended jazz with a form of music that is "black" in nature.

Are you kidding me? Go actually LOOK at the examples that PHAROAHROCK himself gave. Was Stravinsky black in nature? How about Latin and Indian music, are they black in nature too?

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
Coypu, your act is getting old my friend. Just what exactly do you hope to prove here?? Nobody is listening bro. Sorry, that's just the reality of it plain and simple.

I'm sorry, why aren't you listening to what he has to say, when your OWN REASONING demands that his views be given validity?
Why don't you give a reason why a fusion of deathmetal "beats" isn't a valid idea, WITHOUT USING MY NOVELTY ARGUMENT.

I can't believe you guys are arguing with me so much in another thread, when I've been completely forthcoming and pretty consistent, while you turn around and say these things.

[jazzypaul]

Wow, it's getting heavy in here. Really heavy...

A couple of things to bring up, hopefully without making anything worse for anyone...

A "hip hop beat", as far as I know, is a pretty static feel. BUT if a musician can find a way to heavily improvise hip hop rhythms, as in MOMENT TO MOMENT decisions of when to play, then yes I would agree that a hip hop fusion could retain a core element of jazz.

Hip Hop beats CAN be static, in the same way that a swing beat can be static if left to less than sympathetic hands. But if you figure that in situations where a live drummer is used, that the drummer in the hip hop/jazz fusion situation is likely to be coming from a direction such as Idris Muhammed's, those beats are going to be anything but static. Russell Gunn's Ethnomusicology's drummer is a total monster. And those guys DO improvise on the fly. I have the albums, and I've seen them a number of times. And they absolutely cook.

Are you kidding me? Go actually LOOK at the examples that PHAROAHROCK himself gave. Was Stravinsky black in nature? How about Latin and Indian music, are they black in nature too?

The key with Bird and Stravinsky was not that there was a fusion there, but instead, that there was an understanding there. Much as Bud Powell made very clear his pull from Bach, Bird did much the same thing with Stravinsky. With latin music, let's face it, a lot of "latin" rhythms and "african" rhythms are at least somewhat interchangeable, especially in a lot of the 6 against 4 situations that come up in both. Not to mention, ever notice that throughout the Dominican Republic, Cuba and Brazil that there are large Black populations? As for the Indian thing, it just works. Much like Masada works pretty damn well, and that's a big Klezmer/Free Jazz mess.

I'm sorry, why aren't you listening to what he has to say, when your OWN REASONING demands that his views be given validity?

I am listening to what Coypu has to say, and I own a few of the albums that he has talked about. Again, it comes down to intent. There's no intent of the blues, no intent even towards syncopation, much less swing. There's no sense of history of the music, there's no sense of actual jazz to the music that he's referring to. Sorry, but Ornette sounds like a jazz man, no matter what he's doing. As does Bill Frisell, as does Joseph Jarman. None of them are playing anything that you could call mainstream jazz, but they are playing music that is rooted in the history of jazz. Cynic, simply, is not.

[Jazz]

Hip Hop beats CAN be static, in the same way that a swing beat can be static if left to less than sympathetic hands.

Point taken.

The key with Bird and Stravinsky was not that there was a fusion there, but instead, that there was an understanding there. Much as Bud Powell made very clear his pull from Bach, Bird did much the same thing with Stravinsky.

I agree, but then again, Pharaohrock was using those examples as an argument for fusing two musics together. I happen to really vibe with the idea of just taking really really specific things and using them, like Parker/Stravinsky. I actually didn't know about the Bud Powell/Bach thing, that's very interesting!

As for the Coypu thing, its Pharaohrock's logic that I was speaking to. His argument that I can't argue against the idea of "fusion" in certain contexts would mean that fusing jazz to ANY kind of music is a valid idea. Which I think is as bad as me saying that jazz shouldn't EVER be fused to any kind of music.

[Pharaohrock]

= getting opportunistic Jazz.....I casually used the term "Latin beat" and I'm every bit as aware of the complexities of Latin rhythms as you are unaware of the complexities of some hip-hop rhythms and associated rhythms like drum and bass, which would probably floor your ass and is definitely a legitimate challenge for an improviser.

Novelty music. That's all hip-hop is. RIIIIGHT.

You know what it is with you Jazz? I'll tell you flat-out: you're a 50 year old man wrapped in a much younger body. Go and out and be with your peers. Get drunk and get laid if that's what it takes for you to relax. Whatever the case, now is the time to live and to experiment, not to become so rigid in your thinking that you're not open to new ideas, and not to mention- criminally out of touch with some of the genuinely HAPPENING, SUBSTANTIAL cultural developments of your own generation. Your constant referencing of hip-hop as novelty music indicates just how sheltered your Jamey Aebersold jazz-shedding ass is.


And here's a news flash: as much as I love jazz, there's a lot more creativity and improvisation going on with electronic music and with hip-hop these days than in jazz itself. I check the shit out, and find it inspires me to be more creative within Jazz (or in fusing trifling novelty musics with it) even if there isn't a direct application to Jazz in what they're doing.

Open your mind Jazz. Bird thought the future of Jazz lied in Stravinsky, not some tourists view of the Jazz tradition where everything is this cute little chapter of the story. Steve Coleman is more Jazz than you or I but doesn't even want to be associated with the genre. This devout allegiance to the jazz tradition bullshit gets you nowhere fast.

[Jazz]

I can't believe this. Holy freaking crap, Pharaohrock, why are you IGNORING OVER HALF OF WHAT I SAY??????

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
I'm every bit as aware of the complexities of Latin rhythms as you are unaware of the complexities of some hip-hop rhythms and associated rhythms like drum and bass, which would probably floor your ass and is definitely a legitimate challenge for an improviser.

Originally posted by Jazz
A "hip hop beat", as far as I know, is a pretty static feel. BUT if a musician can find a way to heavily improvise hip hop rhythms, as in MOMENT TO MOMENT decisions of when to play, then yes I would agree that a hip hop fusion could retain a core element of jazz.

RIGHT FREAKING THERE. Right there I stated what I thought it would take for hip hop jazz to be valid, and if you state that it can do that, then I will take your word for it because, yes you are right, I am unfamiliar with hip hop, which is why I chose the words AS FAR AS I KNOW. Did I say absolutely, yes, 100% hip hop beats are static? NO I DID NOT.

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
Novelty music. That's all hip-hop is. RIIIIGHT.

WHERE DID I SAY THAT? WHERE?? SHOW IT TO ME!! YOU CAN'T BECAUSE I DIDN'T SAY THAT. All I did was define my perception of novelty music, I didn't mention ANY specific genre's that I thought applied.

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
You know what it is with you Jazz? I'll tell you flat-out: you're a 50 year old man wrapped in a much younger body.

Oh yeah, well have some damn respect for your elders.

Originally posted by Pharoahrock
Whatever the case, now is the time to live and to experiment, not to become so rigid in your thinking that you're not open to new ideas, and not to mention- criminally out of touch with some of the genuinely HAPPENING, SUBSTANTIAL cultural developments of your own generation. Your constant referencing of hip-hop as novelty music indicates just how sheltered your Jamey Aebersold jazz-shedding ass is.

You are crazy. Nuts. Certifiable. Constant referall to hip hop as novelty music? Where did you get that? I don't think that, I've never said it. You are inferring WAY too much from my posts. You're problem is that you think you have me pegged without even knowing me. You think that just because I harbor a few opinions that fit some inane stereotype in your twisted mind that I must be just who you imagine me to be. Well wake up. You are obviously a very angry individual. I don't care who you are angry at STOP TAKING IT OUT ON ME.


Originally posted by Pharaohrock
And here's a news flash: as much as I love jazz, there's a lot more creativity and improvisation going on with electronic music and with hip-hop these days than in jazz itself. I check the shit out, and find it inspires me to be more creative within Jazz (or in fusing trifling novelty musics with it) even if there isn't a direct application to Jazz in what they're doing.

That's a fine opinion. Really. I wouldn't advise you to go against your instincts.

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
Open your mind Jazz.

No, you open your mind. Stop just believing that I'm wrong just because you see it differently. I have only said OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER THAT I AM WILLING TO CHANGE MY OPINION WITH THE MORE I FIND OUT AND LEARN.

Yes, with the more I learn, my opinion may change. What's that? I may find out differently with more knowledge added to me. How did that go? Maybe if I learn more, I will find things out that are different than I believe now. Hey, here's a thought, maybe with the more time I spend with the music, my current opinions will change because I know more. You know, I was just thinking that I'm going to be sure and be open minded as I learn more, so that my opinions can be educated and intelligent. Hmm, somehow, I have the feeling that with the more I learn, the more I will understand the scheme of things. Got it?

[Pharaohrock]

And you're telling me that I'm angry?? I can almost hear the frothing at the mouth coming off the page.

I'm sorry you feel like I misrepresented you...I have better things to do than pore over past responses and try to glean what is or isn't 100% accurate though (are you studying to become a lawyer dude? Damn if you aren't thorough about this. I should give you credit but I think you probably ought to have better things to do than invest so much energy towards defending yourself here. You're getting way too worked up over this..)

But 100% or not, your admissions of not knowing hip-hop perfectly well or not, I know that you've implied hip-hop as a novelty music on numerous occasions....whenever we talk about jazz hip-hop or Steve Coleman's music you come out with your standard line that jazz shouldn't be fused with a "novelty music?" Is that just coincidence man?? Or, I guess in your thoroughness, I'm just going off of "circumstantial evidence."

And I apologize if you feel that I'm trying to make some kind of caricature of you when the shoe doesn't fit, but earlier you made a hard-nosed case indeed, and it's plainly obvious to me at least that you're now trying to tone your argument down and downplay a lot of principles you stated earlier with exceptions that you're willing to accept upon further review. Fusing jazz with another genre is sounding more acceptable by the minute to you realizing how commonplace this has actually been in jazz history, for example.

Here's a thought: why not survey the scene, get all the information needed, evaluate it and establish what you do and still do not know before you go out on a limb next time?? You are not enjoying these exchanges, but fail to see that you have some responsibility for that in terms of laying out such an extreme position to begin with. I'm not going to go back and cut-and-paste from your old posts, but you said that you thought the last 20 years were full of failed visionaries, and you didn't think jazz could truly develop unless it was from its own resources, not from taking influences from other genres. Two positions most certainly conservative, Wyntonesque, and just extreme IMHO. I'm not exactly sitting here telling you that if you don't listen to hip-hop your music has no chance to be relevant.

[Jazz]

OH my gosh where to start.

Yes I am a thorough person by nature.

I'm sorry if I came off as hard nosed, but they are my real opinions. Am I not allowed my opinions? I thought we could have an actual exchange of information, that's what this whole stupid internet is for anyway. Do you think I'm ready to write a thesis on my ideas yet? NO, of course not, that's why I put them out here. But you know what? You're right. I should have known enough to just keep my mouth shut. I should have known that with your views you could not handle what I had to say.

By the way, I don't feel ANY different about where the music should go, thank you very much. "Fusing" jazz with another genre is not sounding ANY better to me, and I think if anything, you've proven my point about the fractured state of jazz. Maybe its not proof to anyone else except me, but I KNOW that I went into that discussion with the intent of trying not only to express my viewpoint, but to understand yours as well. Instead of being able to have a civil exchange, we got into it. I think I actually held back my frustration pretty good for a while, until I was baited with messed up comments about my person.

But 100% or not, your admissions of not knowing hip-hop perfectly well or not, I know that you've implied hip-hop as a novelty music on numerous occasions....

Dude, I'm sorry you took it that way, but it actually never crossed my mind to imply that. Next time why don't you try asking a fella if that's what he means.

and it's plainly obvious to me at least that you're now trying to tone your argument down and downplay a lot of principles you stated earlier with exceptions that you're willing to accept upon further review.

If that's how you want to look at it. I am on a quest for knowledge, not a quest to find evidence to support my existing opinions. I admitted ONE thing (I HAVEN'T studied newer music) because I was trying to be fair to your opinions, and I was trying to respect you. I also gave up certain arguments because I wanted to find common ground to communicate with. Wasted effort obviously, now you can pretend like my opinions are uneducated, and you can continue to ignore them instead of actually trying to see my point of view. Bravo.

Here's a thought: why not survey the scene, get all the information needed, evaluate it and establish what you do and still do not know before you go out on a limb next time??

Here's a counter thought: why don't you try taking it easier on someone who doesn't see things the way you do? The only reason you wouldn't is if you think you are wiser, smarter, and have more truth than the other person. THAT is more close minded than I have ever been.

I'm not going to go back and cut-and-paste from your old posts, but you said that you thought the last 20 years were full of failed visionaries, and you didn't think jazz could truly develop unless it was from its own resources, not from taking influences from other genres.

Actually, what I kept saying, and am still saying, and still will be saying until I find out different is that fusion does not sound like jazz to me. When I hear it, it doesn't sound connected enough to be justifiable in calling it jazz. Its just my opinion. So, yes in the context of DEVELOPING jazz and taking it to the next level I think that they have failed. That doesn't mean that they didn't make good music, or that they are novelty music. Also, if you had bothered to ask WHY I think that jazz needs to go back to its roots I would tell you this:

Jazz is no longer popular. No one likes it, not even the modern stuff. The more kinds of music we call jazz without it being justifiable will only serve to weaken it as a style until it doesn't exist anymore. Just regular folks who are curious about jazz already have no idea where to start, and the constantly bickering jazz fans don't help them understand it. Wake up, jazz is disappearing fast. Younger musicians will play the modern stuff without ever understanding what its supposed to relate to. Don't tell me its not that way, because I've seen it over and over. And I would HATE, HATE, for the legacy of people like Monk, Mingus, Coltrane, Mulligan, Parker, and Gillespie to be relegated to some "jazzy" sounding lines over a 4 bar solo only to be heard in some pop songs. So, a revival of the old styles sound completely reasonable to me.

So, go ahead and dismiss this opinion as stupid or old fashioned or outdated or conservative. The way I see it, people like you are doing nothing for jazz. It has nothing to do with your modernism and everything to do with your close mindedness. You won't even talk to someone who studies the old style every day, all day. You don't respect someone who has passion for the old style, and wants to play it, even though that is where this great music that you claim to love came from in the first place. You don't even respect Wynton, who may not be a visionary leading people to the future, but he is virtuosic at the old styles, loves the music, and has given new life to the foundation of jazz.

Pharaohrock, your capacity to take things that I say out of context and argue with them is a gift. I'm sorry for getting so angry, I'm sorry for expressing my opinions where they are not wanted, I'm sorry for rocking your limited view of jazz, and most of all, I'm sorry that we can't find some common ground to walk on together. Please forgive me for having an opinion.

Well, I think I will stay away from this forum now. Thank you for showing me what I am up against. I really do wish you well in your endeavors and musical visions.

[Pharaohrock]

Taking the martyr route huh....how predictable.

Good luck to you too. Wynton's always hiring....

[3pointdeli]

something is obviously wrong with this forum. how many people have left the discussion TODAY? i know i can be disagreeable, and even argue from time to time, but this site has become a series of multi-page arguments, and that's got to stop or else everyone will be gone soon. i, for one, don't want to see that happen.

[3pointdeli]

for the record, three people have publicly stated they are leaving...TODAY...and there is a petition for banishment of a fourth.

what's up?

[jazzypaul]

I feel bad, I must admit, because I've had my hands in many of these arguments. I don't feel bad asking for the banishing of coypu because he brings nothing to the table except bad vibes. But yeah, that sucks. We should all back off for a little while. Discuss openly, but I for one am willing to back off anything that even resembles a personal barb...

[Pharaohrock]

this is being grossly overstated. to anyone who has any experience with online forums, they should know they're not all peaches and cream. this will all balance out over time....besides which, i don't see anybody being blatantly nasty or mean-spirited. what the hell is wrong with a little to and fro?

don't know about you, but I wasn't raised to think that "arguing" was a bad word. arguing is often the only way people can level with what they truly believe about a matter.

[3pointdeli]

this is being grossly overstated. to anyone who has any experience with online forums, they should know they're not all peaches and cream. this will all balance out over time....besides which, i don't see anybody being blatantly nasty or mean-spirited. what the hell is wrong with a little to and fro?

1. overstated? i disagree
2. peaches and cream? true, but this is one of the worst i've seen.
3. balance? maybe
4. don't see blatantly nasty/mean spirited? are you blind?
5. to/fro? nothing is wrong with that...but page after page after page is a little much, don't you think?

[clifton]

I'm going to play pop psychologist here. I confess that what follows is partially based on my own fears, which proved to be unfounded. The core issue in all these arguments about jazz, its definition, its fusions, its future, is swing. When jazz musicians experiment with funk, rock, hip hop, Balkan, or any other rhythms we might characterize as "not-swing", I believe those who love bop-based jazz, that is, jazz that swings, fear for the future of swing rhythms. I remember when Miles, Herbie, Chick, etc. embraced rock and funk beats, and electric instruments, I was afraid younger musicians would abandon swing altogether, that acoustic bop-based jazz was dead. And I liked fusion. (Still do). But within a year or two of "Bitches Brew", I realized that Archie Shepp, Sam Rivers, the Art Ensemble of Chicago, Ornette Coleman, Don Cherry, and many other musicians had not abandoned swing. In other words, my fears were groundless. Further, I hear in all jazz fusions, that the prevailing beat, be it funk or hip hop or whatever, is inflected by swing, that is, the straight-eighth-note beat is pushed forward, the pocket moves around, a swing rhythm emerges on the ride cymbal. (Check out Mike Clark or Jack DeJohnette or Billy Kilson to hear this). And today, as musicians like Matthew Shipp, Tim Hagans, and Bob Belden create ferociously good music by fusing with electronica and DJ culture, there is no absence of swinging jazz. It is in the nature of jazz to experiment. And it is in the nature of today's jazz musicians to view jazz as a continuum, with all idioms being worthy. Thus Bob Belden can go from "ReAnimation Live" to "Black Dahlia", James Carter can go from "Layin' In The Cut" to "Chasin' The Gypsy", and Dave Douglas can go from "Soul On Soul" to "Witness" to "The Infinite", and it's all jazz. Incidentally, when I saw Dave Douglas last year, they closed their set by stretching out on a medium tempo hard bop blues. The whole band swung like mad, and Douglas proved his greatness as a straight-ahead jazz musician. A broad, inclusive view of jazz by musicians and listeners has become necessary for further growth of the music. Swing won't die. Swing feels too good, for musicians and listeners alike. Who in God's name would want to bury that feeling? In jazz, we need not play Crouchian, definitional games. Now I'll admit bebop is my favorite form of music, but I listen to, and love, all the jazz idioms. Those of us who love swing don't have to be afraid we'll be washed away in a tidal wave of mechanical beats. Acoustic, swinging jazz will never die. Instead, I bid a hearty welcome to the new fusions. Inclusion forever, and long live jazz.

[Pharaohrock]

Thank you for that Clif. Very thoughtful commentary, and I think you may be right that the root of people's fears is that other rhythms would overtake swing.....I too, don't see that happening, but embrace the fact that jazz is continually becoming more rhythmically diverse.

[bombastic]

i think the world needs more cliffs, a voice of reason crying out in the middle of the asylum of the jazz websites. i certainly can learn from this guy. stay cool cliff. jazz lives. i'll try to follow your good example.:cool:

[clifton]

Thanks for the kind words and support. I believe it is our duty as listeners to enter the music with open minds, open hearts, and open ears. Isn't that how we got into jazz in the first place?

[Dr. B]

Originally posted by clifton When jazz musicians experiment with funk, rock, hip hop, Balkan, or any other rhythms we might characterize as "not-swing", I believe those who love bop-based jazz, that is, jazz that swings, fear for the future of swing rhythms... Those of us who love swing don't have to be afraid we'll be washed away in a tidal wave of mechanical beats. Acoustic, swinging jazz will never die. Instead, I bid a hearty welcome to the new fusions. Inclusion forever, and long live jazz.

Just couldn't let the opportunity pass without adding my appreciation of this post, Clifton. I think you've hit the nail on the head. Cut through anger, and one almost always finds fear at its base. IMHO, you have correctly named the fear, and that helps rob it of its power. Well done; thanks!

[jherschmann]

Well, having joined this site today (so people are not only leaving here but joining, too! :-) ) and just having read this thread I have to say that there are some, well ...interesting... discussions going on here! Reading Clifton's very fine (psychologist) comment I wanted to add a few words here.

As I have stated earlier today in a different thread I think it is always interesting when jazz and non jazz or traditional jazz (for a lack of a better word...) and progressive jazz people get into a discussion about what is jazz and what isn't! It's that old argument again! But IMHO there a few important things to remember about jazz.

First of all, jazz is about feeling and even though it has been the subject of many academic considerations and discussions due to its often very advanced musical concepts one should never forget that! If it feels good in your guts it can't be bad, right?

Secondly, Jazz to me is still characterized to a large degree by its improvisational nature as opposed to other music styles that are less ... let's say interative and spontaneous! That doesn't necessarily make it better than non improvisational music, it is just different! Some people don't like jazz exactly for that reason and maybe prefer more defined formats like e.g. classical music. Hey, that's fine! I like jazz because of the individual and improvisational aspect, the interaction of musicians on stage!

Thirdly, jazz has always developed and transformed over the years because it has absorbed many influences from different cultures of the world! Instead of being hurt by that it has grown by that even though it might not seem so at first glance. I adore Bean, Hawk, Prez and the many, many others that followed in their footsteps. But as great as they are I know I would miss out on a lot of good stuff if I'd only listen to them and their peers!

Miles Davis to me symbolizes this situation perfectly. The prime reason why Miles is my all time favourite musician and idol is not simply the fact that he played great music. A lot of people did and still do. It is not beacuse he single handedly revolutionized jazz at least four or five times with something COMPLETELY new. It is the fact that he was NEVER afraid to go down a road that most people couldn't even follow twenty years later! And guess what, if you are so daring a personality and changing the direction of music so drastically so many times is it any wonder that even the most adventurous admirers had a hard time understanding what he was doing? Many jumped ship some time underway and said he had turned crazy! I say he was not only a genius but a very brave man! He was not afraid to go the untravelled road as a musician. Should we be afraid then to follow as listeners?

Many times people have said jazz is dead. Well, I truly believe it is not! It will not be as long as people are open minded enough to embrace different styles of music. All the great jazz artists have done this! There is always a risk of a dead end. But so what, if you hit the wall go around it or better break it down! That is what Miles did and this is what we should do!

I guess what I want to say is with jazz absorbing so many styles over the years it has accumulated the best from many cultures and is constantly getting artistically richer. And by that every person who has even the slightest interest in music which is a little bit more sophisticated yet swingin' than your average radio blah will find some jazz style that they can adhere to and enjoy. Does it matter if it is Louis Armstrong, Big Band, Cool, Free Jazz, Fusion or anything else that has got that jazz vibe? I doubt it!

I for one have come to enjoy music in any of those styles in a learning process of more than two decades as long as it is heartfelt and swinging. And believe me, hardly a day goes by that I don't find out something new, be it a new band, a new style or a new instrument that I have not heard before!

Nuff said!

[clifton]

Hello jherschman. Well spoken, or well posted. I love Miles too, but for sheer bravery coupled with integrity, I vote for Ornette Coleman, who at age 72 is still ever the seeker. My favorite musician is Charlie Parker, who touches something in me that no other musician has ever reached. My sons, age 19 and 11, like jazz as well, particularly the younger one, a huge fan of Bird, Stitt, Ornette and Dave Douglas. They older one leans toward Bird and Miles' second great quintet. BTW the wife likes jazz but not as much as the boys do. I think all this makes me lucky.