Lack of talent or popularity?

[JazzAt52ndStreet]

Why haven't we seen anyone like John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong etc. for at least 5-6 decades? Is it because, jazz has become less prominent, therefore, not giving the opporutnity for that kind of talent to surface to public attention? Or is it because there just hasn't been that kind of talent?

[JazzAt52ndStreet]

before you answer..consider this.

Even though 80 or so years ago, classical music was in a similar state as jazz is now, (Yes I did read the post on classical and jazz music fading out, and yes i agree that it is not as dire as that article may suggest, but we all have to admit, that jazz isn't overly popularly either.) Jascha Heifetz was able to break through, and is now, almost without argument, considered the best classical violinist ever.

52nd

[crawjo]

In my opinion, from the fan's perspective, jazz today is as good as it has ever been. There are far more choices available, plenty of music to explore. And yes, there are plenty of talented musicians whose work should stand up to the giants you mention as time passes and we gain perspective.

[Rob Damen]

Originally Posted by JazzAt52ndStreet

before you answer..consider this.

Even though 80 or so years ago, classical music was in a similar state as jazz is now, (Yes I did read the post on classical and jazz music fading out, and yes i agree that it is not as dire as that article may suggest, but we all have to admit, that jazz isn't overly popularly either.) Jascha Heifetz was able to break through, and is now, almost without argument, considered the best classical violinist ever.

52nd

What article/post are you referring to?

[pollo loco]

Originally Posted by JazzAt52ndStreet

before you answer..consider this. Jascha Heifetz was able to break through, and is now, almost without argument, considered the best classical violinist ever. 52nd

What in the world do you mean by this over-the-top appraisal of Heifetz and his work? Using the term "best" isn't at all appropriate when you wish to compare this violinist with others, whose approaches are different to the max.
pl

[Fred K]

Heifetz is certainly one of the greatest violinists ever and an influence on most of the violinists who followed him, but he was not a revolutionary in classical music (or even on his own instrument) the same way that Armstrong, Ellington, Davis, etc. were in jazz.

[Other Steve]

And actually, if you asked most people younger than, say, 50, they wouldn't name Heifetz at all. They'd tell you the greatest classical violin player of all time is Itzhak Perlman.

And they'd be equally wrong. (Likewise, for instance, Caruso and Pavarotti.)

Me, right this minute I'm listening to a younger-than-30 violinist named Daniel Hope, who's telling me things about Alban Berg's Violin Concerto that no one has ever told me before. I also spent most of the day listening to Craig Taborn play things that no one's ever played before -- at least, not in the exact way that he played it.

Is it really true that there's no one of Bird or Trane's stature out there right now? Is it possible that perhaps jazz no longer has the capacity for paradigm shifts of that magnitude? Or is it simply that the rest of the world isn't tuned in to what jazz musicians are doing for it to make as big an impact on the way history is reported and received?

After all, the biggest "arts" story to emerge in America on this particular day, according to CNN, at least, is that Victoria's Secret won't be airing a lingerie special this year, thanks to fear of Michael Powell.

But lest anyone think this is a dismissal, let's go back to 52nd's original question, which was:

"Why haven't we seen anyone like John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong etc. for at least 5-6 decades?"

And to you, 52nd, here's my completely honest question:

Like them, how?

[JazzAt52ndStreet]

Originally Posted by Fred K

Heifetz is certainly one of the greatest violinists ever and an influence on most of the violinists who followed him, but he was not a revolutionary in classical music (or even on his own instrument) the same way that Armstrong, Ellington, Davis, etc. were in jazz.

.....then again, who has been revolutionary in classical music since the times of Mozart and Beethoven?....the closet anyone has come to revolutionizing anything in classical music is Bela Bartok.

Like thoose guys, as in being remembered as greats generations after their time. Do you think that the Marsalis' will be remembered two generations from now? How about Jason Moran? Mike Stern?.....or even older guys, nic payton, josh redman. I seriously doubt it.

52nd

[Nate Dorward]

Redman, not Redmond.

52nd: take a look at umpteen Reid threads & you'll probably get your answer.

[JazzAt52ndStreet]

....thanks, i knew something looked wrong.

[gnhrtg]

I might be a closet jazz fan, you never know.

Other Steve - is he the (British?) violinist who claims to have worked with the authentic score?

JazzAt52ndStreet - I'm guessing most people who could make, me not being one, worthy contributions here have said what they have to say in response to many threads like yours' and are probably fed up. If you'd accept those who are still alive and I don't know how you'd want to qualify remembered, and I don't if we could agree on who's talented or not apart from a few instances but Anthony Braxton's first album dates from 1968 and his new records are still generating enthusiasm, Brotzmann first album also dates from 1968 and (though some think otherwise, as some always will) his most recent music is nowhere dated or behind the times. Roscoe Mitchell's first album appeared in 1966 and his new 3-disc solo release has gathered interest (and appreciation) from full time music critics. Cecil Taylor, first album in 1955, still putting out records and going strong. Evan Parker, first appeared on record in 1972 his releases are still making the best-of-the-year lists of many who are interested in that vein. Alexander von Schlippenbach, Misha Mengelberg (who, as you might know, appeared on Dolphy's "Last Date" along with Han Bennink) and many others...

Armstrong dissed the bop guys and (Wynton) Marsalis and others, critics, of the more popular press might do the same for the avant-guys. That doesn't mean they aren't there, i.e., remembered (again by whom).

edit: Not that there aren't others but I'd also like to mention Dave Holland who, in my opinion, has been equally successful on many fronts ("Conference of the Birds" in 1972, "Extended Play" in 2003.)

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Other Steve

And actually, if you asked most people younger than, say, 50, they wouldn't name Heifetz at all. They'd tell you the greatest classical violin player of all time is Itzhak Perlman.

And they'd be equally wrong. (Likewise, for instance, Caruso and Pavarotti.)

Me, right this minute I'm listening to a younger-than-30 violinist named Daniel Hope, who's telling me things about Alban Berg's Violin Concerto that no one has ever told me before. I also spent most of the day listening to Craig Taborn play things that no one's ever played before -- at least, not in the exact way that he played it.

Younger people still might want to say Maxim Vengerov - having seen him play live a few time - the experience is quite breath-taking!!

But if you are looking for originality and contribution - then seeing Tamsin Little playing Ligeti's violin concerto at last year's proms was mind-blowing - the technical demands of this concerto are truly staggering - and she played her own cadenza, written to sum up Ligeti's preceeding five movements!!

[stonemonkts]

Originally Posted by JazzAt52ndStreet

before you answer..consider this.

Jascha Heifetz was able to break through, and is now, almost without argument, considered the best classical violinist ever.

There's no way anyone could say Heifetz was the best "ever". Arcangelo Corelli was supposedly the best "ever", and then Paganini in his day, etc and so on. Heifetz was certainly the most acclaimed violinist of the 20th century, but as far as "best" that is truly a matter of subjective opinion. He wasn't my favorite, for instance.

I think Perlman is a boring violinist, but wtfdik.

Anyway, back to jazz...today there's so much diversity in jazz (whether it "swings" or not) that we don't really need another giant. If you add up all the great music recorded in the past few years alone, imo it adds up to at least as much listening pleasure as any period of the past, probably much more today.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by JazzAt52ndStreet

.....then again, who has been revolutionary in classical music since the times of Mozart and Beethoven?....the closet anyone has come to revolutionizing anything in classical music is Bela Bartok.

I'll leave the debunking of that ridiculous statement to others more qualified than me.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Yes...I missed that one - so there's a long list after Beethoven, including among many,many others and in no particular order:

Mahler, Scriabin, Wagner, Ravel, Stravinsky,Sibelius,Shostakovich,Tchaikovsky,Debussy, Messiaen,Ives,Cage,Schonberg, Stockhausen,Ligeti,Berg, Lizt,Puccini,Verdi,Rachmaninov etc. etc.

[hornplayer]

Originally Posted by JazzAt52ndStreet

Jascha Heifetz was able to break through, and is now, almost without argument, considered the best classical violinist ever.

Really? According to whom? I do remember some people saying that.... at the same time others were acclaiming David Oistrakh.

I'd still rather listen to Isaac Stern....

but your point is?

[gnhrtg]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

Yes...I missed that one - so there's a long list after Beethoven, including among many,many others and in no particular order:

Mahler, Scriabin, Wagner, Ravel, Stravinsky,Sibelius,Shostakovich,Tchaikovsky,Debussy, Messiaen,Ives,Cage,Schonberg, Stockhausen,Ligeti,Berg, Lizt,Puccini,Verdi,Rachmaninov etc. etc.

That's quite a lizt you have there.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by JazzAt52ndStreet

....

Like thoose guys, as in being remembered as greats generations after their time. Do you think that the Marsalis' will be remembered two generations from now? How about Jason Moran? Mike Stern?.....or even older guys, nic payton, josh redman. I seriously doubt it.

I think Wayne Shorter will be remembered as one of the greats and he is still touring and doing new kinds of things with his acoustic quartet and he played a residency in London's South Bank recently which acclaimed his legendary status and put him in programmes with orchestras etc.

People like John Scofield and Pete Erskine are working in crossover areas with contemporary classical composers to produce definitively new music which will be remembered.

Dave Holland has also done this and developed his own style of small band Jazz based on his experiences with Miles - his compositions, based on odd time signatures are genuinely new and interesting - based on open harmonies and often non-repeating bass lines that aren't the usual walking lines or 2-feel.

There are many other innovative styles of Jazz going on in Europe - crossovers and fusions with Folk music, Serial Music, Dance culture, Electro Acoustic etc. etc.

It's all out there if you look and don't just want to be spoonfed and told who are the undisputed "greats" without any thought or discernment on your own part?

All the innovators began by being classed as noise, wrong notes,repetitive rubbish etc. when they started out, like they did with Ravel's Bolero or Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" - it's only with 50 years or more of hindsight that everybody agrees that they are masterpieces - no doubt, in 2060, people will be talking about some artists we don't really rate or know about much now, as the "greats of the past"....?

[Other Steve]

Originally Posted by gnhrtg

Other Steve - is he the (British?) violinist who claims to have worked with the authentic score?

That's the one. Nice rendition of the Britten concerto, too; a cooler alternative to Vengerov's impressive heat.

Agreed with regard to Tasmin Little and the Ligeti concerto, Bruce. Hope she gets a chance to document her interpretation and cadenza.

[Fred K]

I heard Daniel Hope play a couple of years ago with the Beaux Arts Trio at the Library of Congress and seem to remember liking him. They did Beethoven and Schumann piano trio and Hope and Menachem Pressler did Don Byron "Spin," a piece for violin and piano.

[JazzAt52ndStreet]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

Yes...I missed that one - so there's a long list after Beethoven, including among many,many others and in no particular order:

Mahler, Scriabin, Wagner, Ravel, Stravinsky,Sibelius,Shostakovich,Tchaikovsky,Debussy, Messiaen,Ives,Cage,Schonberg, Stockhausen,Ligeti,Berg, Lizt,Puccini,Verdi,Rachmaninov etc. etc.

Thoose are some very very great composers, but how influential were they? Were they influential like Bird, who changed the way a solo was taken for everyone after him? Monk, who started playing chords with implied notes? Thoose composers, surely were geniouses, and definatly contributed to classical music, but did they change it? Maybe they influenced other composers, but they definatly did not take the genre and steer it in a different direction.

I feel that guys like Coltrane, Bird, Monk, play on a different level then guys like Scofield, or Payton. But thats just me.

-52nd

[MRS]

Originally Posted by JazzAt52ndStreet

Maybe they influenced other composers, but they definatly did not take the genre and steer it in a different direction.

Do you know of John Cage?

[Sergio Zamora]

That you, Reid?

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by JazzAt52ndStreet

Thoose are some very very great composers, but how influential were they?

Thoose composers, surely were geniouses, and definatly contributed to classical music, but did they change it? Maybe they influenced other composers, but they definatly did not take the genre and steer it in a different direction.

They certainly did in too many ways to document here - but Mahler developed "progressive tonality" and pushed the boundaries of tonal music, which were further stretched by Debussy and of course finally broken by Schonberg. Stravinsky's rhythmic innovations in "the Rite of Spring" influenced future generations and its like had never been heard before. Scriabin developed new ways of forming chords in his Poem of Extasy...

I could go on and on....it's all there in any historty of music - you just need to do some research!!

Were they influential like Bird, who changed the way a solo was taken for everyone after him? Monk, who started playing chords with implied notes?

Well, as much as I like Bird - he wasn't innovating as much as building on what had gone before, re-harmonising standards and adding more extensions to chords - many people were doing this at the same time - although he was arguably the best at what he did - his tone wasn't that good and you could just as easily make a case for others?

Monk was an eccentric and wrote very little music actually - and very few pianists have played like him since or now...?

I feel that guys like Coltrane, Bird, Monk, play on a different level then guys like Scofield, or Payton. But thats just me.

I think the innovations they made were more "understandable" to more people - but I would argue that maybe somebody like Dave Holland has had just as much an impact on Jazz and how to develop the music in other directions, although his modesty would no doubt forbid him admitting this - and people like John Scofield have taken Jazz into fusions with other types of music and driven it forwards, no matter how much others might like to see it stuck 40 years ago!!

[sashabur]

As I understand the initial question, it should be reformulated, because it has nothing to do with innovators, it has to do with "big names" and why newer "big names" are inferior to older ones. I think that's the way entertainment industry works, and the situation isn't specific to jazz - you may observe the same in other genres of music. Big companies prefer selling branded products. But while older "big name" people were taken as brands in the middle of their creative career, newer ones are being branded from the beginning, there is not much space for them to develop, that's why. Also, big companies don't really want to drop the older and stable (read: conveniently dead) "big names", because they were advertised for the last 50 years and are soooo profitable. On the other hand, "independent" people are less known to the general public, because small labels they're recording for keep within thier small market niche, but as a reward they have a lot of space for their creativity. That's oversimplification indeed, but I think it's closer to the point than the question whether Heifetz is a best violinist ever, or not