Where are the innovators now? Where is jazz going?

[petros]

I just read an interview with Keith Jarrett and he suggested there haven't been any innovators for as long time now. I recall Miles declared jazz had died years ago.
Who are the current inovators and where is jazz headed?

[Jonathan Sutton]

I think at least one of them is right here:

http://www.jazzcornertalk.com/speake...s=&threadid=39

Definitely an innovative musician (and trio), and pretty definitely jazz as well.

(On the other hand, I don't think jazz is going anywhere the way it used to -- but a bunch of jazz musicians are going in a bunch of new directions.)

[chuckyd4]

I agree Jonathan - hope this doesn't come off as grumpy, but I don't think the question is really all that useful, Petros. Histories of the music have always been predicated on the assumption that there is some linear progression to the way jazz moves, like Oliver begat Armstrong begat Eldridge etc etc... which leaves us in the kind of confusion we are today when trying to ask the question the same way. Of course this is a useful model when trying to assess such a large history, but it's also in serious need of an update. Today's dominating trends seem to be the ability to incorporate all kinds of history (not necessarily in linear fashion) and use them to create individual styles. I don't think there is a dominating "style" per se - instead, we are now in the priviledged position of having a lot of talented, open-eared musicians following their own interests and developing their own musical histories. While it may be frustrating to historians who want to pin down the prevailing trend of the year, it gives listeners a refreshing sense of possibility.

Of course, there are much more eloquent people than myself who will undoubtedly weigh in and tell you that's jack shit, and that so-and-so is the *greatest*, and the only true path, but I'm open to suggestions.


If you're looking for a list of people who are doing original stuff that can still easily be described as jazz music, you could do a lot worse than to check out the artists' sites section right here on Jazz Corner. Try listening to some sound clips and then branching out from there. If you're feeling more adventurous, many of the posters here will be happy to bombard you with endless lists of people extending the boundaries of what used to be called jazz.

Feeling more useless than usual....
chuckyd4

[Captain Hate]

Maybe Jarrett's chronic fatigue syndrome impeded his ability to process anything new. And Miles may have had a head full of blow when he made that statement; or maybe he was totally lucid and just throwing it out to create some controversy.

[crawjo]

If you're feeling more adventurous, many of the posters here will be happy to bombard you with endless lists of people extending the boundaries of what used to be called jazz.

I am feeling adventurous. I got into jazz two years ago, and have inundated myself with the classics: Davis, Coltrane, Taylor, Coleman, Monk, Parker, etc. etc. I confess to knowing little if anything of the current jazz scene. The only current jazz music I listen to is Patricia Barber, but I would love to be bombarded with lists of people who are extending the boundaries of jazz music.

Fire away!

[Jonathan Sutton]

I hasten to add (I often seem to hasten to add when I post) that I do not mean to slight other musicians here at JC or elsewhere in the innovation department by mentioning Ellery. Dennis Gonzalez, Mark Taylor, Frank Kimbrough, Robin Eubanks... I love everything that I have heard by all of them (which is some for all of them -- and apologies to anyone I omitted in that list). But if a sceptic suggested that there was no innovation in jazz nowadays... Ellery Eskelin (and his trio) is one of the first people that I would cite as a counterexample.

[Nate Dorward]

Keith Jarrett's a fine one to talk--exactly what's so "innovative" about the Standards Trio?

[Bill Barton]

Boy oh boy, quite hilarious!

They're going where they've always gone (being themselves, letting the chips fall where they may.)

They're returning to where they've always returned (understanding that you can't build a house without a foundation.)

[Cem]

Originally posted by Jonathan Sutton
Ellery Eskelin (and his trio) is one of the first people that I would cite as a counterexample.

I completely agree with you, but crowjo may not know who you're talking about. He knows Ellery as Eileen. (see Dubya Is Gone In 2004 thread)

If he means innovation as in new approaches, then there aren't many new ones. Generally speaking, most of the canvas has been painted, but there are still some innovators with no fear and their own voice, poking around, no doubt. We'd have to define the boundaries of jazz music as well as what Mr Jarrett means by "innovation".

If he means innovation as in digging deep, I think all you need to do is listen to committed players everywhere. To me, someone committed to playing music from the heart is innovative regardless of the newness of the style of music. They're creating something special, making a very personal statement, particularly if they have the magic combo: chops, honesty and passion. There are many players like that, so Jarrett would be out to lunch on that one.

[Pete C]

I don't know about innovations, but for me some of the most compelling developments in recent years are the syntheses of jazz with the musical traditions of various non-American musicians, including Gianluigi Trovesi, Italian Instabile Orchestra, Louis Sclavis, Renaud Garcia-Fons, Chano Dominguez, Michel Godard, Rabih Abou-Khalil, Anouar Brahem, et al. Among the labels I look to for this are Enja, Label Bleu & ECM.

[crawjo]

I completely agree with you, but crowjo may not know who you're talking about. He knows Ellery as Eileen. (see Dubya Is Gone In 2004 thread)

Yeah, that was just me being stupid, as always. All those 'e's in his name, I just somehow read it as Eileen. But actually the above post got me curious about Ellery's work, so I checked out his web site and read some reviews. Sounds like he does some really interesting stuff. Amazing the people you can meet on this board, huh?

[Cem]

That was just some gentle ribbing. I hope you don't mind, crowjo. Your posts on that thread are thought provoking.

Yes, check out Ellery live whenever you can, if you're interested in checking out someone innovative (regardless of what Jarrett means by it), as well as one who obviously respects and has absorbed jazz history. Living close to NYC, you have a myriad of choices at places like Tonic. I would add John Zorn's Masada Quartet to Pete's list of compelling developments in mixing jazz and other traditions, though many here would probably disagree, as that band's been around for 10 years, don't play much anymore and many may see them as old hat.

Also, the Chicago scene has a ton of great players, who are very much rooted in free-jazz, and they ought to move you. School Days with Ken Vandermark et al. would be a great starting point.

[stonemonkts]

I think there are countless innovators in jazz, the difference between today and 40+ years ago is there are no major innovators in the mainstream of jazz, IMO.

As far as major innovators go outside the mainstream, I always think of Anthony Braxton, Henry Threadgill, Cecil Taylor, John Zorn, Evan Parker, Barry Guy, and many others. Jazz was mortified by the young lions but thankfully these other artists stayed on their respective paths.

JC's own Ellery (Eileen) Eskelin, Dennis Gonzalez, Mark Taylor, Tom Varner, Robin Eubanks (these are the ones I am familiar with) also create and participate in innovative music.

Sometimes innovations come off as very subtle things, such as when Paul Bley shifts into one of his many excursions, however brief. Or when Fred Van Hove does his thing, etc and so on. There's not enough time to explore all the innovative music out there, I don't think we are suffering from a lack of it, quite the contrary. It's impossible to keep up with more than a small fraction of it.

[Nate Dorward]

stonemonkts: aren't you taking "innovative" to mean "creative" or just "good"? No-one'd debate those you name are fine musicians, but many of them more or less staked out their territory & style in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s & continue to work within them. Not that that's a bad thing--I'm happier by far with the term "creative" than "innovative", anyway--but I'm not quite sure that's the question the original poster was asking.

[stonemonkts]

Originally posted by Nate Dorward
stonemonkts: aren't you taking "innovative" to mean "creative" or just "good"? No-one'd debate those you name are fine musicians, but many of them more or less staked out their territory & style in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s & continue to work within them. Not that that's a bad thing--I'm happier by far with the term "creative" than "innovative", anyway--but I'm not quite sure that's the question the original poster was asking.

Yes, I suppose I was equating creative with innovative, or at best trying to make a case for highly creative improvisations as also being in a subtle way, innovative. On further reflection I see that innovations by their nature cannot also be subtle, unless many such minor innovations become cumulative, perhaps?

[crawjo]

That was just some gentle ribbing. I hope you don't mind, crowjo. Your posts on that thread are thought provoking.

No offense taken. I knew it was gentle ribbing. Still, when you mentioned that, I thought to myself "Oh, shit, did I do that?" And then I had to go back to that Dubya thread and yup, I did it. It was one of those smack yourself in the forehead kind of moments.

[Reid]

Well, I used to be really interested in this question, but, for the time being, I've kinda lost interest in it. Why? Well, it's a done deal in my view. I don't hear any major innovations out there--none that make me rethink what I think of as jazz. If there were these kinds of innovators, we would be talking and arguing about them here at the site. That fact that there is very little discussion about any of the so-called new developments indicates to me there aren't any major innovations in jazz. But look at the eai thread. Look at the enthusiasm there. People are excited about the music, partly because it's a fresh and new. That says it all to me: one of the most long-running active threads at a jazz site is about a music that's not jazz.

[Jon Abbey]

Fred Kaplan addresses this in the introduction to his year-end best-of jazz column last week in Slate:

"What does it say about the state of jazz that the three best jazz albums of the year are previously unreleased recordings made some two to four decades ago? It doesn't say what you might be thinking—that jazz is dead or that today's musicians are less talented than those of yesteryear. A lot of top-flight musicians are out there today exploring new sounds or creatively fusing old ones.

Still, it's futile to deny that jazz had a golden age (though critics and listeners continue to debate precisely when it was and who wore the crowns). However one defines it, the age was marked by a palpable excitement in the new—fresh styles of composition and improvisation, young artists who devised ways to meld the two. And even at the time, everyone sensed the age was golden. All the musicians listened to the latest record by Charlie Parker or Miles Davis or John Coltrane and knew they had to deal with it—whether that meant to copy it, embellish it, or depart from it. The atmosphere was intensely competitive; the innovations were cumulative; the sense of revolution seemed permanent. The current jazz scene may be too fragmented, the awareness of music too global, to produce another golden age. Even so, the best jazz musicians continue to revel in what jazz has always done best: to dazzle, shock, or elate the listener."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2092689/

[walto]

"What does it say about the state of jazz that the three best jazz albums of the year are previously unreleased recordings made some two to four decades ago?"

It says to me that the writer hasn't heard "Black Water"

[Chris D]

Hah! You mention that Fred Kaplan column, Jon. I got them to make a correction, as he had originally talked of Stan Getz's alto playing!

[mke]

I find Passing Ships a bit over-hyped.

[Jazzooo]

"I recall Miles declared jazz had died years ago. "

He was just getting back at Jazz for saying that HE died.

[Ellery Eskelin]

I see I've been mentioned here...thanks folks. But I will point out that I agree that the golden age of jazz is long over and that the kinds of innovations, the massive upheavals (at least in retropsect) that we saw up through the '60s have indeed already taken place within the context of what is now generally thought of as jazz.

That's not to say that there isn't music being made today that's just as new and vital and important in musical terms (if not social or cultural terms), just that there's no real context or major trends in todays fragmanted musical scene to assess it in that would compare to the situation in jazz up through the late '60s. Most of it falls outside conservative definitions of the word jazz anyway. But I can think of many present day artists that are just as important to me personally as any artists from the "history of jazz". I still sometimes get perturbed when I see proclamations that jazz is dead without reference to what is happening today in music that is in fact new.

As a musician it's easy to lament not having been a part of the major cultural arc of the art form you work in. But on balance I'm much happier to be alive to today making the music I am making. In that respect, jazz don't matter (as much as I love it)...what's happening in your world today does...and there's plenty of music that reflects that that's at least related to jazz.

Eileen

[twisted]

>>Histories of the music have always been predicated on the assumption that there is some linear progression to the way jazz moves, like Oliver begat Armstrong begat Eldridge etc etc... which leaves us in the kind of confusion we are today when trying to ask the question the same way. Of course this is a useful model when trying to assess such a large history, but it's also in serious need of an update. Today's dominating trends seem to be the ability to incorporate all kinds of history (not necessarily in linear fashion) and use them to create individual styles. I don't think there is a dominating "style" per se - instead, we are now in the priviledged position of having a lot of talented, open-eared musicians following their own interests and developing their own musical histories. While it may be frustrating to historians who want to pin down the prevailing trend of the year, it gives listeners a refreshing sense of possibility.<<

Chuck - just wanted you to know that I found myself nodding enthusiastically the whole time I was reading the above. I think you made a really good point.

jessica

[jazzfiend]

Right arm, Walto! Black Water rocked my boat too.

Also, check out Vijay Iyer's recent Blood Sutra.

[walto]

You got it jazzfiend, I'll definitely pick that one up, too.

[crawjo]

Ellery,

Please accept my apologies for my gaffe. I am afraid I will never live this one down...

[Cem]

crawjo, I can assure you, he's got a sense of humour. I'm sure he enjoyed it, don't worry. For the most part, folks around here are pretty tough-skinned & without fragile egos. Cheers!

[Nate Dorward]

"I recall Miles declared jazz had died years ago."

Well, even setting aside the accuracy of this viewpoint, Miles has been gone for over a decade, so it's not a terribly pertinent observation anyway. -- I do get tired of these horse's mouth things. (e.g. how many friggin' times is Zappa's dumb little comment about jazz's smelling funny going to get trotted out?)


That Kaplan piece is depressingly predictable, though I'm pleased to see the Ahmad Jamal disc gets a plug (the only disc on the list I couldn't have predicted before reading the article). Getz an altoist, eh?

[Ellery Eskelin]

Originally posted by crawjo
Ellery,

Please accept my apologies for my gaffe. I am afraid I will never live this one down...

Thanks Crawjo (what's that handle mean by the way?) but not to worry, I kind of like having a feminine alter ego...
And Cem is correct about the thick skins although I must say again I appreciated your thoughtful tone on the politico thread. It makes a difference.