New Jazz Compilation

[Reid]

Here's the situation: you have a friend who says he's not interested in jazz because it's old. You respond by saying that jazz is still growing and changing, but your young friend is still skeptical. You tell you're friend that you're going to burn a cd for him to show him what you mean.

What songs are you going to put on there?

[Pete C]

Originally posted by Reid
Here's the situation: you have a friend who says he's not interested in jazz because it's old.

All of my friends are old.

Anyway, if I had any friends who claimed they weren't interested in jazz I'd leave it at that. There's nothing wrong with not being interested in jazz. I don't want to impose my musical taste or form of government on anybody.

[Reid]

Hey, let's just say you're friend asked you to make a compilation to prove your point.

Dang, Pete, you're a grouchy ol' son-of-gun aren't you.

[Jazzooo]

One word: Merzbow.

no, just kidding. You already know some of what i'm going to say, but here goes:

The first two cuts of Metheny's Road to You live album;

The Radiohead cover (track 2) of Brad Meldhau's Art of the Trio #3 (Songs);

Something from Wayne Krantz;

Tee Bag from Smokin' in the Pit;

Weather Report: Teen Town;

Maybe something from The Bad Plus;

A Minor from my album Plays Well With others;

Upside Downside from mike
Stern's first album

[Reid]

You better make Merzbow the last track. We do want them to listen to the whole cd. :) (Seriously, I would not put Merzbow on there, as he's probably outside of jazz.)

Hey Jazzoo, you really like the Bad Plus album? Have you ever taken my recommendation and checked out James Hurt bluenote album? It's not super great or anything, but I think if you like Bad Plus, you'd like the Hurt. That album, *Cosmic Grooves, Mystic Rhythms* (or something to that effect) is a great example of a title and album cover that really screwed the music. I think it's worse than Corea's smurfs album. Well, that may be pushing it, but it's close.

"A Minor" is a good song to have on there. I like the tune, arrangement and, of course, Young's solo.

[Gary Sisco]

What Pete said. Make one for someone else.

[Jazzooo]

Gary and Pete--

I've had great experiences with the kind of CDs we're talking about and the kind of people we're talking about, not the least of which is my brother. He just didn't "get" jazz, even though he's a fine rock and folk musician. For years, I've been turning him onto what i think are great examples of jazz he could relate to better. It was not a hassle for me, I love sharing musical recommendations and he always listened with an open mind.

Anyway, I recently took him to see Wayne Shorter and what a fantastic payoff: he was as blown away as i was and we've been talking about it ever since. This isn't to say that he's scouring used lp racks for classic jazz recordings all of a sudden, but he's definitely more interested than ever before. I could have written him off at his advanced age of 51, of course, but decided not to. It's very likely that he will accompany Glenda and me to the Monterey Jazz Festival later this year--that's a cool turn of events.

Reid asked

"Hey Jazzoo, you really like the Bad Plus album?"

No, I've only heard two cuts--but I thin their take on Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit is kind of funny and cool, and it certainly doesn't sound "old" to me.

" Have you ever taken my recommendation and checked out James Hurt bluenote album? It's not super great or anything, but I think if you like Bad Plus, you'd like the Hurt. "

I heard one cut and it didn't grab me, but I will try again. The new Barnes and Noble has a feature where you can sample the first 90 seconds of most tracks on any CD just by running the bar code under a lazer. This is a VERY good way to shop.

[Uli]

fweiw the Bad Plus can be presently heard in live concert on the bbc radio 3 webpage.

[Reid]

Jazzooo,

Cool story about your brother. It reminds me of my brother. Every so often, I play him stuff to see if he would like it. Ironically, it wasn't the newer forms of jazz that interested him. Since my brother likes 80's pop, rock guitar (SRV, Joe Satriani), I played him some Frisell, Krantz and Metheny, but he didn't care for it (which kinda surprised me).

One day while hanging out at Border's I got him to listen to Art Blakey's version of "Moanin." Surprisingly, he got into right away. I said, "Listen for Blakey's drum roll." When Blakey played his press roll my brother just grinned. Later he checked out some Brubeck, and he really liked that. He's been borrowing stuff from the library, but I don't think he's really into jazz right now. Still, it was cool to see him like some of that stuff.

Now, I'm trying to get him into Merzbow, but he won't go for it. (He likes to say he can hear that every time the neighbor uses his powersaw. :)

Re: James Hurt

If you don't like Bad Plus, I don't think you'll really like Hurt. I just think Hurt is doing something similar (perhaps more M-base-ish). Dark Grooves, Mystical Rhythms was a good first album. I have no idea what happened to him after that.

[Ed Swinnich]

I just picked up Dark Grooves, Mystical Rythms from Half.com. It was one of those discs where the shipping was more than the disc. I really like it - nice disc. Picked up a couple of Orphy Robinson discs the same way - not bad stuff either.


Back on topic, I suppose I'd put Charlie Hunter, John Scofield, Erik Truffaz, Greg Osby, Jason Moran, Pat Metheny, Dave Holland, John Abercrombie, Charles Lloyd and Wayne Shorter on a disc to expose someone to more recent jazz.

[Reid]

Ed,

You're one of the few people I know who has heard and liked that Hurt album. Did you get a good look at the cover before purchasing it? If so, why'd you get it? :)

I haven't heard Charlie Hunter in a while. What's his playing like these days?

[Armando]

Henri Texier (something from Remparts D'Argile )
Dave Holland (from the big band disc)
Something from the new V5 CD
A Moran/Osby tune
Matthew Shipp (from Equilibrium)

[jenny]

It's funny, I actually just made a mix CD for someone who requested that they'd like to hear some "new" jazz (and "jazz") -- and it was really a daunting task.

But, anyway, I've decided not to be shy and post what I put on the discs --

Fred Anderson Quartet / Ornette Coleman / Albert Ayler / Cecil Taylor / The Art Ensemble of Chicago / Sun Ra Arkestra / Vandermark 5 / Jeb Bishop Trio / Peter Brotzmann / David S Ware / Nels Cline + Gregg Bendian / Flying Luttenbachers / Anthony Braxton / Chicago Underground Quartet / Isotope 217 / Matthew Shipp + The Anti-Pop Consortium / Supersilent

I'd like to hear yr thoughts as well, because I was like, "Duuuuude, I don't know where to start ..."

[Jazzooo]

Hey, Jenny--Glad you ovecame your shyness!

I know some of the music on your mix tape,and some is unfamiliar. Of the groups that I am familiar with, I'd say your friend is in for some pretty exciting and challenging stuff, both harmonically and rhythmically. let's see how he/she likes it--would you be so kind as to report back with his reaction?

[Reid]

Jenny,

I'm also glad you posted. Btw, Supersilent is a group that I really want to hear. I'd be interested in any of your comments about the group.

[jenny]

RE: Supersilent

Supersilent definitely falls more on the rock side of things. Dark and chilly (even a little spooky) improvisations. The group has recently been compared to Godspeed You! Black Emperor, and I think that it's fair -- the two groups operate with similar atmospherics.

I really am enjoying its most recent release, "6," but I think I am most partial to "5," their live record. (And, apparently, the band hardly speaks to each other outside of gigs).

And thanks, I'll definitely tell you what his reaction is -- I tend to like more abrasive music than my friends do.

[Reid]

Thanks, Jenny. Your remarks definitel jibe with other things I've heard about the group. I also want to check out Godspeed, but I haven't gotten around to it.

[Ed Swinnich]

Originally posted by Reid
Ed,

You're one of the few people I know who has heard and liked that Hurt album. Did you get a good look at the cover before purchasing it? If so, why'd you get it? :)

I haven't heard Charlie Hunter in a while. What's his playing like these days?

I have to admit that I almost did not get past the cover. But the price was so right and after I checked AMG, there was no way I could pass it up.

Like I said, it was a very pleasant surprise. I don't know about the dark and mystical part, but the music is full of grooves and rhythms. I enjoy his style of solos as well. He's got a sort of angular approach that I found similar to the way John Scofield chooses his notes. A fun and interesting listen.

But that cover - I wonder how many people saw that, turned, and ran.

As far as Hunter goes, I've enjoyed his more recent stuff. His style and sound are the same. I liked him from the first time I heard him but always wondered if he would not paint himself into a corner stylistically a la Stanley Jordan. I have found that he keeps changing bands enough to keep things interesting.

I dig "Songs from the Analog Playground" - which features heavy doses of vocals by an assortment of singers - a lot. "Charlie Hunter" is more of what you'd expect from Hunter - a solid record with some nice grooves. He's got a new one out but I have not picked it up yet.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

I recently put together a comp for someone who was already into jazz but disillusioned about the lack of good strong melodies. Here's what I came up with:

Abdullah Ibrahim/Ralph Towner/Keith Jarrett/Dennis Gonzalez/Phillip Catherine/Art Lande/Barre Phillips/Zbigniew Namyslowski/Bill Connors/Paul Motian/Cassandra Wilson

[Reid]

Ed,

The only reason why I picked up the album was I got to hear it at a listening station, and I almost didn't listen to it at the listening station because of the cover. Based on the cover I thought I was going to hear some cheesy, retro-fusion, and I was surprised to find that it wasn't really cheesy, but that Hurt only played an acoustic piano.

What I really liked was how each song maintained a nice groove without becoming monotonous. Throughout the performance of the song, Hurt throws things in there that keeps the listener from getting bored. I thought it was one of the more successful M-base-ish type recordings I had heard. I was especially excited because this was his first album.

Thanks for the information on Hunter. I liked his technique, but I never really got into his stuff. Still, I keep an eye on what he's doing.

Dennis,

I don't know if you're just joshing me, or if you forgot that that long time jazz fan was me! I do agree that there are some strong, beautiful melodies. However, some of those tracks were 20 to 30 years old weren't they?

Btw, did you get me email of the song list? I emailed it to you a couple of weeks ago using jc.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

"Dennis, I don't know if you're just joshing me, or if you forgot that that long time jazz fan was me!"


Reid, of course I knew it was you, and I just wanted people to know that not only do non-listeners of jazz need guidance, so do long-time listeners! I've been head-over-heels myself with some of the recommendations I've heard from my fellow JC'ers!

"I do agree that there are some strong, beautiful melodies. However, some of the tracks were 20 to 30 years old weren't they?"

Yes sir...and there ain't no "however" about it! If you didn't know them before, they're new!

[bluenoter]

If you didn't know them before, they're new!

Reid, I wish you'd engrave those words on your hand or something. Truly, you don't need a constant stream of brand new proof that the world is still spinning satisfactorily. The tone you hear in this post is frustration!

[Reid]

Dennis,

Look, I think those melodies you sent are good, and they prove that there are strong melodies that I haven't heard. However, that wasn't my original position. I was talking about the lack of strong melodies from musicians now (let's say in the past ten years).

bluenoter,

I don't know if you remember this, but in case you didn't, this discussion I'm having with Dennis orginated in a thread I started at jc about the lack of strong melodies in contemporary jazz tunes. Dennis challenged (in a friendly way) me about this, and I'm trying to live up to that challenge.

Why are you getting so frustrated? Would you rather have me agree to what people say or not express any dissenting view?

[bluenoter]

Reid, I've already said what I had to say. I'm not going to say it over and over again, no matter what responses I get. And I'm certainly not going to say it with slight variations in thread after thread.

I wish that you'd take that approach too.

[Reid]

I'm not even sure what you're suggesting I do. Since you don't seem to want to talk about it, I guess we'll leave it at that.

[Jazzooo]

Bluenoter, no need to get rude. We like Reid over here. ;)

"I think those melodies you sent are good, and they prove that there are strong melodies that I haven't heard. However, that wasn't my original position. I was talking about the lack of strong melodies from musicians now (let's say in the past ten years). "

Reid, there is no more a "lack" of strong melodies now than there was back when those older recordings were made that you just didn't know. The new melodies are hiding in the same places that those older ones were--somewhere out there.

Now I think what i wrote is basically true and it did make me smile, but...I think that with the advent of "groove" music, writing melodies (which requires a different skill than coming up with a repetitive beat) has fallen into the hands of folks who aren't always that strong. But there are still plenty to choose from, including thsoe on the compilation CDs you and I said we'd create for a friend interested in "new jazz."

[Reid]

Jazzooo,

I don't know if I agree (no, really? :)). Why did jazz musicians use the same songs to improvise over? Didn't they do it because the melodies and changes were so strong? There wasn't a shortage of those type of tunes either. You also had musicians like Ellington and Strayhorn, Monk, Mingus, Silver, Hancock, and Shorter writing some really strong, appealing melodies, too.

I don't think we can say the same about the situation now. Actually, I think Metheny and Mays and Bobby Watson are up there or very close. I truly believe they've written songs that have a good shot at becoming jazz standards of the future.
(But they're not exactly young musicians either. )

That's the thing: I don't hear many songs written recently that make me feel like they have a chance of becoming standards. I don't hear melodies that stick in my head, and I don't tire of. But again, that's a different subject.

I've been thinking about what I'd put on the compilation, and I hope to post it soon.

[bluenoter]

Originally posted by Jazzooo
Bluenoter, no need to get rude. We like Reid over here. ;)
I'm sorry. I was frustrated.

[gnhrtg]

I would put tracks from

Brad Mehldau's trio recordings (any one will do)
Greg Osby "Banned in NY"
Steve Coleman - probably his last one out on Label Bleu
Gonzalo Rubalcaba "Discovery
David Holland's "Not for Nothin'" or "Prime Directive"
Vienna Art Orchestra - The Minimalism of Erik Satie (not that recent though!)
Branford Marsalis - Dark Keys (or maybe Bloomington)
John Zorn - Masada Live in Tonic (1st or 2nd track in CD2)
Uri Caine - Goldberg Variations (file under jazz!)
Gateway - Homecoming (the 5/4 tune by Dave Holland if I remember correctly)
Liebman/Nussbaum/Gomez - Monk's Mood
A track off the old Scofield albums w/Lovano and Stewart

and some more I can't think of right now

[Jazzooo]

Thanks for clearing that up, Bluenoter.

Originally posted by Reid Jazzooo, I don't know if I agree (no, really? :)). Why did jazz musicians use the same songs to improvise over? Didn't they do it because the melodies and changes were so strong?

Don't make those assumptions, Reid. In my conversations with Frank Rehak (who was alive and recording a lot back then), I learned that there were many aspects surrounding "song selection" on albums.

Often the artists' own compositions weren't deemed good enough to be released, so the producers went to the well of standards and brought back the ones that everyone knew from years of gigging, because they were simply good vehicles for improv. And if you look at the billions of blues tunes that have become classics, you really can't argue that their changes were "so strong." Most are just extremely similar templates with throwaway heads on which to build an improvised performance, basically.

By the way, do you really believe that a song like Afro Blue would have been so huge had it been performed by, say, Sonny Stitt? I think it would have just been another blues song, albeit in a fun 6/8 feel. it is famous now because Coltrane wrote it and played it--it's not more magical than tons of other blues, imo.

And there are other categories of songs, such as songs based on "Rhythm changes" (as in I've Got Rhythm); and songs based on How High The Moon, etc. Some of Charlie Parker's classic "compositions" were really created by just slapping new melodies on older chord progressions that specifically lent themselves to the language of bebop, like Ornithology was based on How High The Moon, and Scofield's Not You Again was based on There Will Never Be Another You.

These songs were picked because they were like 'instant compositions' that didn't require a lot of time to compose or learn, and also the artists liked them because they could be eligile for composing and publishing royalties without having to write anything new from scratch.

[/QUOTE][i] There wasn't a shortage of those type of tunes either. You also had musicians like Ellington and Strayhorn, Monk, Mingus, Silver, Hancock, and Shorter writing some really strong, appealing melodies, too.

I don't think we can say the same about the situation now.[/B][/QUOTE]

Well, sure you can--we've (including you yourself) named at least that many composers we believe are writing strong tunes. We obviously don't have 5 decades of hero worship and legend to help us appreciate the new guys like we do with even the mediocre tunes that guys like herbie wrote amongst his jewels.

But the biggest difference today is that, generally, artists stick to their own compositions which cuts back dramatically on exposure of new songs. This happens, I believe, for two reasons: ego and cash. Ego because young players want to see their name listed as the composer, even though a metheny or Watson song might be a better vehicle for them; and cash because they get paid more if the bulk of the songs are theirs. Don't think this is an unimportant aspect!

Metheny, mays, Meldhau, Watson, Robinson ;), Grolnick, Avishai Cohen--oh man, the list could really go on. Corea. Scofield. Are they going to create a Song For My Father-type standard? A couple might, but those days are mostly over now. The truth is that the times have changed: simple melodies based on simple chord progressions are out of fashion in mainstream jazz--they aren't complex enough to hold the interest of the bulk of jazz fans. listen to the new Jacky Terrason album--man, those melodies are pretty trippy, and he's still more of an 'inside' player than an outside one. And Song For My Father was NEVER revolutionary, Reid, just a catchy tune with a kickass vibe. And "catchy" is way too commonplace today--a lot of smooth jazz consists of catchy throwaway tunes, doesn't it? And none of us really values them as 'compostions,' do we?

[i] Actually, I think Metheny and Mays and Bobby Watson are up there or very close. I truly believe they've written songs that have a good shot at becoming jazz standards of the future.
(But they're not exactly young musicians either. )[/B]

Age has nothing to do with anything, Reid. You really don't know how old Ellington was when he wrote Satin Doll, do you? Do you know how old Strayhorn was at his peak? Would it matter? i think you assume that it makes a difference for a 20 year old to write something great today instead of a 40 year old or a 60 year old. Buy the new Wayne Shorter album--this cat is 70 by now, isn't he? he is making music NOW, so it is the music of today, not music of yesterday.

[/QUOTE][i] That's the thing: I don't hear many songs written recently that make me feel like they have a chance of becoming standards. I don't hear melodies that stick in my head, and I don't tire of. But again, that's a different subject.[/B][/QUOTE]

You know, you are confusing the terms "standards" and "covers."
Standards were a phenomenom of a time when there was less diversity and a lot of ad hoc blowing sessions where everyone needed to know the same song right away. That doesn't happen very often today because artists develop their points of view quicker and are aiming for a specific spot in a crowded market--you don't differentiate yourself by playing other peoples' music as easily as by playing your own.

And as for covers, there are hundreds of spectacular songs from outside the jazz world (just like the classics of the jazz eras gone by). more and more artists are starting to cover them too--it's a good time for that, imo.

Standards are tiring, buddy. Even the genre of "standards" is a boring concept to me. Musicians should play what they love to play, period. If you can't hear the magic in the melodies of Milton Nasimento when he plays them himself, what makes you think you'll hear it when Joe Blow plays them?[/B][/QUOTE]

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Reid, I beg to differ...your original thread said nothing about "musicians now (say in the past 10 years)". I believe you used the words "contemporary jazz musicians". All the list I sent was contemporary musicians who are still alive and still playing.

Again, I contend what I said about the 20 to 30 year-old list. If you haven't heard it, it's new to you! And I daresday you've not had the opportunity to hear but a very few of the musicians of the past 10 years who write great melodies. But, that doesn't mean that stuff is not out there.

And that's the same list I would give to someone who's not heard jazz before.

And I don't think that, even though she apologized, Blue was being rude. If you read her words, they are straightforward, and she says what she feels. I'm with Blue on this one.

[Jordan]

Coltrane did not write Afro-Blue (Mongo Santamaria did) and it is not a blues (sorry to be pedantic). And yes, it's very simple, just two chords, but it has its own mood and feel that lends itself well to improvisation I think.

[Jazzooo]

"Coltrane did not write Afro-Blue (Mongo Santamaria did)"

Holy moly, busted! Thanks, Jordan.

"... and it is not a blues (sorry to be pedantic)."

Not technically, but as a musician that's definitely the genre I would place it.

" And yes, it's very simple, just two chords, but it has its own mood and feel that lends itself well to improvisation I think."

I'm not saying it isn't a great song--it does have more than two chords, by the way. But in any case I don't think it would have been included in every Real and Fake book for several decades had Trane not unleashed his mighty performance of it. In other words, it does not stand alone as 'a great composition' to my mind like other songs do. It stands on it's own as a great recording of a good song, and a song that is also fun to play.

If you were making a list of, say, 50 kickass compositions of all time, would you include it?

[SinginSumo]

< I've been head-over-heels myself with some of the recommendations I've heard from my fellow JC'ers!>

Hiya Dennis. Which of these recommendations have knocked you out??

[Reid]

Dennis,

When I said contemporary musicians, I basically meant musicians who came on the scene in the past 10 years. I agree that there are many jazz musicians who have written strong melodies that I have never encountered, whether it's in the past 10 years or the past 50. I'm not concerned about the 30 or 40 years ago because I know there are many compositions and musicians that I have yet to discover. But I'm more interested in hearing good songs from contemporary musicians--musicians who have recently come on the scene.

I also concede that just because *I* haven't heard strong melodies from contemporary musicians doesn't mean it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Starting that thread was to put the challenge out there. I put my opinion out there, and expected (or hoped) that someone would say, "What about these musicians, Reid?" You did that (which was cool), but, again, I wasn't

<I'm with Blue on this one.>

About what? About my posting style?

[Jazzooo]

"When I said contemporary musicians, I basically meant musicians who came on the scene in the past 10 years. "

Why would that even matter, Reid? You make too many distinctions based on arbitrary dates, ie "which artists who showed up in the last 10 years did so and so..." Jazz is on a longer timeline than that. Consider the following:

When Joe Zawinul and Wayne Shorter started Weather Report, one of the most important jazz bands of the last 50 years, they had each been on the scene for two decades! I was into John Scofield in the '70s, but he's having a big resurgence of popularity since 19976--is he a '90s artist? he's selling more tickets today than ever--is he a 2003 artist?

Was Miles a '70s artist, or a '60s artist, or a '50s artist...or an '80s artist? What about Chick Corea? What about me? Since I've been making music professionally for 3 decades, wouldn't it be absurd to consider me '90s artist just because I released a CD you liked in '97?

It's all marketing, man. No one who still has a vital creative bone left in his body wants to be considered last decade's news. Because when their names come up on a jazz BBS, there's some one like you saying "No, I mean who are the good NEW guys?" ;)

Pat Martino is making a very strong contribution right now. Pat Metheny (another band I saw in the the '70s) might not even be at the height of his career yet--is he going to be a 2005 artist?

ok, you get my point. By the way, another composer who has turned out some absolutely terrific melodies is Russell Ferante of the Yellowjackets. He's created an extremely distinctive style.

[Reid]

OK, it sounds like I'm giving you two the impression that I'm negating the validity of musicians just because they don't fit the criteria I've set out. I guess, in one sense you could say that I am doing that.

But I don't think that they're less artistic or valid.

Here's how I remember that thread. I started by talking about hearing a duo (piano and bass/vocals) playing some jazz standards. I remarked that they weren't great musicians/singers, but the music was really enjoyable. It felt like anyone with a decent voice could sing those songs, and it would be a cool listening experience because the melody (and in this case the lyrics) were so good that that's all that mattered.

I then went on to say that it didn't seem like there were a lot of contemporary musicians writing songs like that now--songs that were so good that you could play it straight and it would be totally cool.

I guess for many people the issue of when the songs were written doesn't really matter. But it matters to me. I mean, I can enjoy songs no matter when they were written, but a part of me would like to hear new songs being written today that are just as good as the songs written in the past. I'm not sure exactly why that is, but that's how I feel. I don't see what's so wrong with feeling that way.

[bluenoter]

Originally posted by SinginSumo
< I've been head-over-heels myself with some of the recommendations I've heard from my fellow JC'ers!>

Hiya Dennis. Which of these recommendations have knocked you out??

I'd like to hear that too, if Dennis can recall any offhand. SS, if Dennis doesn't reply here, how about repeating your question on his thread?

[Pete C]

Originally posted by Reid
a part of me would like to hear new songs being written today that are just as good as the songs written in the past. I'm not sure exactly why that is, but that's how I feel. I don't see what's so wrong with feeling that way.

Nothing wrong with feeling that way, but it won't get you anywhere. What I want to know is, are you this obsessed with "newness" in real life, or is it just something you do on Jazz Corner?

[Reid]

Pete C,

I am turned on by innovation and newness in general. Whatever endeavor I may be involved in I'm trying to find a way to make it better or to do something innovative and fresh. That's just me.

I think this craving for innovation and newness in jazz is heightened by how I learned about jazz. I didn't grow up listening to jazz; the music was not all-around. (On the other hand, I did grow up listening to pop/rock, and while I like innovation in those styles, I don't crave innovations in those styles that I do in jazz. I'll explain why later.) I got into jazz in college and then began learning about it through books and articles.

What has been an important part of my interest and excitement towards jazz has been discovering the different innovative developments in jazz. For example, learning about and hearing the differences between be-bop and swing was totally thrilling. I thought those innovations and differences were so cool. Same thing happened with bop to Free and then Free to Fusion. (Somewhere in the process I've also gone back before be-bop and explored swing and Dixieland, but not to the same extent as those other styles.) It's taken me about ten years to work through all those developments up to the present. But throughout those ten years, accompanying the discovery of music that sounded good to me, was this discovery of new innovations.

So my enjoyment of jazz has always been linked with the intellectual excitement I get from innovations. As I said I love innovations, especially those that are conceptual in nature. That's why I loved reading John Cage's ideas or John Zorn's. They are both conceptual innovators in my opinion, and that totally turns me on.

Now that I've worked my way up through Fusion, I'm looking for the next exciting innovation and development. I hope what I've wrote above helps you understand why I think that way.

One other thing. I have this higher expectation of individuality and innovation in jazz because I have always perceived (rightly or wrongly) that innovation and individuality are critical to jazz. Sure, these traits occur in other fields, and they are valued in other fields, but I've always felt they were especially prized in jazz. It's something that I felt jazz musicians and fans (including myself) took tremendous pride in. So while I love innovation and individuality in rock, pop (or any artform or endeavor), I expect to see more of it in jazz.

This is a long post, and perhaps you didn't want this long answer. But I wrote this because some people get frustrated with me because I seem to have this need for newness and innovation, and my hope is that what I wrote above sort of explains why that is.