Innovation is Irrelevant

[Reid]

Maybe I'm wrong, but when I first got into jazz (late 80's) my impression was that innovation was something highly valued by the jazz community (writers, musicians, and fans). I know for me, that was one of aspects of jazz that appealed to me.

Now, it seems like the jazz community doesn't really care about innovation so much. They just want to hear really good music. Is this an accurate characterization? I'd also like to hear from those individuals who once really valued innovation, but have gotten to the point where innovation doesn't really matter anymore.

For me personally, it still something that excites and turns me on. It's something I look forward to hearing. Yes, a music can be good, without it being innovative. Still it's not as exciting when you hear something that is both good and innovative. Plus, I'm still interested in hearing stuff that represents the times now. Anyway, a lot of you have heard me go on and on about this, so I'll stop there.

Where do you think the jazz community stands on the issue? Was there a change in attitudes towards innovations? If so, why did that change occur?

(Just for clarification: When I say "innovation" I don't mean something that's just new or novel. When I use that term I'm including the sense that the new has some artistic meaning or value. By innovation I also don't mean something that is absolutely new, that it has no connection to the past. Armstrong, Young, Bird, Ornette, Hendrix, their music came as an outgrowth from the music that preceded them. )

[Pete C]

Notaf***ingain!!!!!

[Uli]

[Tanager]

Aw, c'mon folks - he could have asked, "is WM innovative?"

[Reid]

Wow, what's interesting to me is the fact that the innovation question seems to be as boring or annoying as the questions regarding the definition of jazz, swing, art, etc. I'm not sure what that says about the state of jazz now, or if it even says anything about the state of jazz now.

I've also lost interest in questions--especially passionate arguments--about the definition of jazz, swing or even art, but not innovation. It still matters to me. Again, I have no idea what that means.

If people here kept trying to argue about the definition of jazz or swing, how I would I feel about that? I don't think it would interest me, so I guess I would just not participate in those threads. I don't think those threads would anger me though, unless there were offensive remarks made in those threads.

Perhaps, innovation was an issue that was important because it was used as a way to attack Wynton Marsalis's ideology. And anything that could be used to attack Wynton's ideology (and maybe himself personally) was going to be used. Now that his ideology is not really relevant, people have lost the need to call on innovation as an important value in jazz. In other words, many jazz fans claimed that innovation was important only as a way to attack Wynton's ideas, and not because they valued innovation themselves. I don't know, just throwing that out there.

[Steve Reynolds]

of course it is important

maybe some here tire of being derided for actually having an interest to hear a recording or a band that sounds different than anything we've ever heard before

and most of those doing the deriding STILL don't wanna hear anything new....

most of them are still resisting what was new 10-15 years ago









peace and blessings

[shrugs]

Who's Afraid Of Anthony Braxton?

[hearsay]

I think people just listen to what they like, it's as simple as that. A lot of people have many things going on in their lives and may not have the time to follow what's innovative, or the patience to appreciate something difficult. They may however hear something that is and like it, or not.

For me I can enjoy anything that's interesting, original and avoids the obvious. Now that could be a totally new conceptual idea or just an interesting turn of a phrase in a jazz solo.

[bernard lyons]

very interesting that you mention writers before musicians..was that just a slip of the keyboard?

[Dennis Gonzalez]

What some listeners call innovation, musicians have no name for.

Or vice versa.

Or, for what some musicians have no name, some listeners call innovation, or not.

Or anti-innovation.

[Chuck Nessa]

When innovation dies, so does jazz. It may have already happened, but I prefer to view the body and believe it will breathe again.

Everything else is autopsy or nostalgia. Both have their place, but they are not on the same level as a throbbing, living organism.

A few musicians are fighting "the good fight", but I'm not encouraged.

That said, I find this thread to be an ugly troll, am embarassed I'm responding, but if it's an honest question.........

[Reid]

This is not a trolling thread. As many here know, I'm genuinely interested in this topic.

[Henry Mars]

... My theory is that anyone can d o what some one else has done. What you need to do is "take it up a notch".
Miles was the man .... he took shit and polished it ... turned it in to music .... used what was there to build somthing else.
Grow .... make it yours. When you do that you innovate.

[Chuck Nessa]

Originally posted by Reid
This is not a trolling thread. As many here know, I'm genuinely interested in this topic.

Then, I owe you an apology, but I did answer.

[Chuck Nessa]

Instead of worrying about the subject, spend time exploring. Open new worlds, and learn from old worlds.

[Chuck Nessa]

Let's not let this thread die. Much information to be gained.

[Reid]

Chuck,

No need to apologize, and I appreciate your answer. I just wanted to let you know I tried to start a genuine discussion.

Speaking of which, a lot of the discussion that took place in this thread has been lost. I don't know if Lois is going to be able to rescue the lost threads

[Darryl G. Thomas]

How do you define innovation when talking about music? I'm not a musician, so for the ones who are: Do you set out to innovate? Is that your stated goal everytime you compose, solo, etc.?

Who or what is innovative is almost a theological argument don't you think?

I don't think anyone who's serious about jazz feels that innovation is irrelevant. As a listener I don't hyperventilate about it. I get a recording and I ask myself do I like what I hear? If it is something "different" then that's icing on the cake.