Where is the art of Jazz today? (opiniones)

[Bluebrew]

This tread is provoked by the thread of "What is in you record collection". Most of the folks seem to have a lot of music from the 40's. 50', and early 60's. Bop and hardbop or neobop. Why?

I feel that it is because Jazz is in a moment where we are looking for a new door to open. It seems that for the last 3 decades Jazz is has temporaily "plateaued out", if you will and we are awaiting a new dawn or a new door to be opened. Fusion and other forms of the 70's and 80's did not open that door we expected. Where do you think we are going?

[Sergio Zamora]

Hmmm. I haven't tallied the entries on that thread, but the usual criticism this board gets is that the focus is mostly on modern music and the avant garde. I'm pretty sure most of the discussion I come across is on these subjects.

With all due respect, I think you're mistaken in your evaluation. There's a whole mess of great modern music, and it's not even necessarily way out. Most of the jazz I listen to is probably from the last 10 or 20 years. And most of it is very different from the music that came before it.

[BaconFat]

The problem with fusion was not so much the genre itself but that so
few knew what to do with it. Excellent work was created by Herbie Hancock
Weather Report and Chick Corea. In what seems to be a response to the
current climate of "smooth jazz" WBGO in NY/NJ is revisiting a lot of that
work in addition to the closer to the bone product of Grover Washington Jr
Stanley Turrentine and Ramsey Lewis, all blasted in the 70's for fusion
and/or more commercial music. Herbie Hancock's Headhunters from 1973
with the incredible drumming of Harvey Mason is STILL one of the highest
points in the genre.
As for the last 10-20 years Stefon Harris, James Carter, Russell Malone,
Joe Lovano, Jeri Brown, Carla Cook, Regina Carter, Hilton Riuz, Fred Hersh,
Geri Allen, Cassandra Wilson, Rene Marie and David Sanchez have all
released enough material to keep ears open.

[crawjo]

Most of my collection probably falls in the "Avant-Garde" category. In fact, right now I am in the process of cataloging my jazz cds, so I'll know exactly what the percentages are when I'm done.

[Sand]

Where?

[John L]

As far as the first question in concern, regardless of one's opinion about the state of jazz today, might it make sense to concentrate purchases of discs on the many great past masters who we can no longer hear in concert, or on music that has already stood the test of time?

[mke]

"(opiniones)"

?No tenemos que escribir nuestras opiniones en español?

[Gary Sisco]

What people have in their collections long term isn't the same question as what they are listening to regularly in the present. If you want to know that, you can get a better picture on the WAYLT threads. I've been a jazz fan for a very long time, for example, but, like Sergio, most of what I listen to "now" (meaning from about 1990 onward) is jazz from the 80s to the present, with the bulk being from the early '90s to the present, and my tastes have moved increasingly outward since (and not only in jazz), one of the main reasons for the acceleration leftward being having encountered a lot of the regulars here online in the past seven years or eight years. The communication afforded by this bbs and JCS before it, opened up a lot of musical worlds for me that I may not have encountered (or in some cases even known about) otherwise.

But I've been maintaining for more than a decade now that jazz is in one of its most fecund and creative periods, comparable to any in the past -- and for me, one of the major proofs of this to back that position is precisely that no one style or form of the music predominates, but many, and moving in different directions, depending on the musicians in question. An ecology is always more fecund and evolutionarily creative the more complex and variegated it becomes. A music is no different in that respect. Duke Ellington once said, many years ago, that he didn't think the word jazz could cover so many different styles of music as existed then under the name jazz. He'd be more than amazed today!

[Bluebrew]

Originally Posted by mke

"(opiniones)"

?No tenemos que escribir nuestras opiniones en español?

That's what I get for surfing in more than one language.

100 years of Jazz is not much time historically speaking. What I am trying to say is that with such rapid progress from 1900 to 1965 more or less it seems natural to me that at this point in time the progress has slowed somewhat and that we are all looking for new or different avenues of expression which seem at the moment, a bit difficult or at least more difficult than in earlier tines, to reach. Some one said the other day that we are still trying to catch up with Charlie Parker's concepts and absorb them completely. I believe this is true.

[mke]

Originally Posted by Bluebrew

1900 to 1965

Why is 1965 still taken as some kind of major (and, apparently, final) cut-off date?

[Bluebrew]

Originally Posted by mke

Why is 1965 still taken as some kind of major (and, apparently, final) cut-off date?

I think it is quite arbitrary but it is the date used more than others.

[Richardo Caerleoni]

Originally Posted by Bluebrew

That's what I get for surfing in more than one language.

100 years of Jazz is not much time historically speaking. What I am trying to say is that with such rapid progress from 1900 to 1965 more or less it seems natural to me that at this point in time the progress has slowed somewhat and that we are all looking for new or different avenues of expression which seem at the moment, a bit difficult or at least more difficult than in earlier tines, to reach. Some one said the other day that we are still trying to catch up with Charlie Parker's concepts and absorb them completely. I believe this is true.

Originally Posted by Bluebrew

That's what I get for surfing in more than one language.

100 years of Jazz is not much time historically speaking. What I am trying to say is that with such rapid progress from 1900 to 1965 more or less it seems natural to me that at this point in time the progress has slowed somewhat and that we are all looking for new or different avenues of expression which seem at the moment, a bit difficult or at least more difficult than in earlier tines, to reach. Some one said the other day that we are still trying to catch up with Charlie Parker's concepts and absorb them completely. I believe this is true.

Bluebrew...Agree with you.

European Western "Classical" music took centuries to go through the kind of changes Jazz has/was slammed through in less than one hundred years...from tonal to atonal, serial, electronic and back again.

No one is saying Classical music is "dead"? From its edge to its core repertoire it still develops and refines. Are Mahler or Bartok dated? Hell. I'm still catching up on Charles Ives! Yet every decade, Jazz is pronounced dead on the slab. Mainly so it can be "re-born" - as per the Crouch's et al dictates.

Yes, there is no Armstrong, Ellington, Bird, or Coltrane about to lead the next way forward. There are so many lose ends that were never pursued - and change in Jazz is really born of its social circumstances - hence the 1945 -1965 acceleration. And these circumstances have changed. So, maybe consolidation at the core and movement at the edges. But still it moves!

And, wherever the next "thing" comes from...it won't be predicted by critics...

Was Ornette?

Note:
BBC R3 (UK) is running a debate on the Future of Jazz in the New Year (2005) - critics, musicians and listeners...I am promised a "mudfight"...should be good!

RC.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Originally Posted by John L

...might it make sense to concentrate purchases of discs on the many great past masters who we can no longer hear in concert, or on music that has already stood the test of time?

My problem is that Dallas, though certainly a major city, doesn't bring in even the current masters, and so in wanting to hear what's out there now, I necessarily need to find music that has not "already stood the test of time."

And although some of my music has already stood a substantial test of time, 20 years and more, the criteria posed by your question would necessarily nullify many of my contributions to jazz...

Originally Posted by Bluebrew

Some one said the other day that we are still trying to catch up with Charlie Parker's concepts and absorb them completely. I believe this is true.

I think that the majority of the posters here, me included, are struggling to keep up and digest the great strides that the music has made from 1965 'til now. I really don't see a plateau...and your CD (for those of you who are not aware, go to the "Ask Dennis Gonzalez" thread - post #1831), shows just how much we have to absorb, with your Flamenco and improvised music stylings - and this is just you and your music.

[Ellery Eskelin]

Originally Posted by mke

Why is 1965 still taken as some kind of major (and, apparently, final) cut-off date?

I think that in the mid sixties things exploded in many different directions at once. Up until then one could trace a lineage from Pops to Trane even as styles varied and the music changed. Nowadays there is no longer a single trajectory. For many improvisors these days jazz is an element in the mix...there's a much broader musical view among both musicians and listeners in which jazz and so many other forms come together.

[Richardo Caerleoni]

Dennis - You are obviously aware that you were quoted in the recent "Cry Freedom" series on (UK) BBC Radio 3?

Yet I am almost certain very few people listening to that programme have ever heard your recordings. Why? Jazz at that "edge" lacks any exposure. In the UK , jazz is singers endlessly re-running the Ella/Sinatra songbook. US jazz post 1965 to them is Wynton etc. and Brecker. And a glance back at McCoy and Herbie.

There is an entire European "underground" scene...mainly because no major label is interested and hence no air play...that is equally ignored on both sides of the Atlantic.

So, yes 1965/9 is artificial...but it was about the last time serious attention was given to the music - beyond the "names". So it is then easy/glib to say "jazz is dead or stale" and programmers reach for the the latest Norah Jones. What is happening on the ground now is totally ignored.

Not sure how you change this?

Best RC.

[Ellery Eskelin]

Originally Posted by Richardo Caerleoni

And, wherever the next "thing" comes from...it won't be predicted by critics...

Personally I think the idea of the "next new thing" in the same context of "jazz" that we had in the past (the 1900 - 1965 thing) is not what's happening now. We have many new things and not too many of them burst upon the collective consciousness like we had in the past, due more to the change in the role of the music in society.

[Richardo Caerleoni]

Originally Posted by Ellery Eskelin

Personally I think the idea of the "next new thing" in the same context of "jazz" that we had in the past (the 1900 - 1965 thing) is not what's happening now. We have many new things and not too many of them burst upon the collective consciousness like we had in the past, due more to the change in the role of the music in society.

Agree totally. RC.

[Ellery Eskelin]

Originally Posted by Bluebrew

Some one said the other day that we are still trying to catch up with Charlie Parker's concepts and absorb them completely. I believe this is true.

People will be dealing with Parker for quite a long time, that's true. But I don't see the assimilation of Parker's music to be as big a factor in the development of the music nowadays. I agree with Dennis that there's a lot of post '65 music that has greater implications for what's going on now. For me I think the biggest factor in current development is the way in which jazz and other musics are affecting each other, aligning and combining in new ways. In musical terms I think one of the bigger ideas being dealt with in the last 10 - 20 years has been the way composition and improvisation are being handled (how they interact) by many different musicians in many different ways.

[Bluebrew]

Boy this thread has given me a lot of food for thought. I'll be back in few days (or weeks) after I digest all this. It has certainly made me more aware of my own "internal struggle".

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Originally Posted by Richardo Caerleoni

Dennis - You are obviously aware that you were quoted in the recent "Cry Freedom" series on (UK) BBC Radio 3?

Yet I am almost certain very few people listening to that programme have ever heard your recordings. Why? Jazz at that "edge" lacks any exposure.

Hey R.C., I was called by the producers about a month and a half ago from London and they asked me questions for about an hour. I know that they were going to use my words, but I don't know how much and to what extent, and I really don't know how long the series runs! Can you enlighten me?

Not to be contentious, but my CD "Old Time Revival" was listed as one of BBC3's Top Ten releases of 2003 and I got several hundred orders online from the UK and parts of Europe that specifically mentioned they knew my music from BBC3. BBC3's Kevin LeGendre also informed me that they had played my CD's on a regular basis and that people were not only requesting it, but asking where it was available. Compared to the myriad styles and genres of jazz, I feel that I stand stock in the center of jazz...in the 80's I would have agreed about your take on including my music on the edges of jazz.

But you are right. Jazz on the edge does not get much exposure.

[Jason Bivins]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gonzalez

Not to be contentious, but my CD "Old Time Revival" was listed as one of BBC3's Top Ten releases of 2003 and I got several hundred orders online from the UK and parts of Europe that specifically mentioned they knew my music from BBC3.

Yeah man, that rocks!!

[Steve Reynolds]

Dennis:

the title might have helped - and the times have changed - the old standby putdown of anything that isn't bop or hardbop as being "out" or "atonal" is only taken as the truth by the narrowist of minds - I am so happy many new listeners have discovered your wonderful music - music that is often spiritual in a very positive (non-religeous) way

and yes - now your music is in what I would consider the mainstream - but as you know, I think most listeners would appreciate the "classic" recordings from the late 80's more now with what has transpired with the mindsets of many jazz listeners - "Catechism", "Stefan", "The Earth and The Heart", "Hymn From The Perfect Heart of a Pearl", "The Desert Wind" and "Debenge, Debenge" would appeal to all the listeners who heard your newer recording(s) via whatever way they have heard them.

I sure hope they all give the old ones a chance

plus maybe they will discover the brilliance of the *great* Charles Brackeen as well as people like Keith Tippett, Carlos Ward & Elton Dean


btw - any word on how Charles is doing, Dennis?

[Jon Abbey]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gonzalez

Not to be contentious, but my CD "Old Time Revival" was listed as one of BBC3's Top Ten releases of 2003 and I got several hundred orders online from the UK and parts of Europe that specifically mentioned they knew my music from BBC3.

wow, nice!

[john williams]

That's great Dennis!

[mke]

Originally Posted by Ellery Eskelin

I think that in the mid sixties things exploded in many different directions at once. Up until then one could trace a lineage from Pops to Trane even as styles varied and the music changed. Nowadays there is no longer a single trajectory. For many improvisors these days jazz is an element in the mix...there's a much broader musical view among both musicians and listeners in which jazz and so many other forms come together.

I don't know. Doesn't the Marsalis/Crouch/Burns axis show that it is relatively easy to construct a post-1965 narrative? That, to me, suggests that the 1900-1965 "scene" was similarly fragmented (perhaps not to the same extent, but not fundamentally different) but a narrative has been built up over time. Popular music has no problem building its narratives in 5-10 year chunks and yet jazz has a 40 year backlog. It seems weird to me.

[Richardo Caerleoni]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gonzalez

Hey R.C., I was called by the producers about a month and a half ago from London and they asked me questions for about an hour. I know that they were going to use my words, but I don't know how much and to what extent, and I really don't know how long the series runs! Can you enlighten me?

Not to be contentious, but my CD "Old Time Revival" was listed as one of BBC3's Top Ten releases of 2003 and I got several hundred orders online from the UK and parts of Europe that specifically mentioned they knew my music from BBC3. BBC3's Kevin LeGendre also informed me that they had played my CD's on a regular basis and that people were not only requesting it, but asking where it was available. Compared to the myriad styles and genres of jazz, I feel that I stand stock in the center of jazz...in the 80's I would have agreed about your take on including my music on the edges of jazz.

But you are right. Jazz on the edge does not get much exposure.

Dennis...It was a very good series...Jazz as Protest...they used your material in (I think) two of the four programmes....I can send you the tapes if you want them?

As per your CD...BBC radio has digital channels so it could well be played on these. I'm sure Kevin is right. My point was that this music is not played enough on their mainstream channels/programmes.

So, I have requested one of your tracks for their Jazz Request Programme c. Christmas...plus asked my local dealer to stock your catalogue...And we could all do this. If people get to hear it...then,they are knocked out...and if the music is to survive it needs this exposure.

Very best RC.

[Ellery Eskelin]

Originally Posted by mke

I don't know. Doesn't the Marsalis/Crouch/Burns axis show that it is relatively easy to construct a post-1965 narrative? That, to me, suggests that the 1900-1965 "scene" was similarly fragmented (perhaps not to the same extent, but not fundamentally different) but a narrative has been built up over time. Popular music has no problem building its narratives in 5-10 year chunks and yet jazz has a 40 year backlog. It seems weird to me.

I see the emphasis from the Marsalis/Crouch/Burns axis as consolidating and preserving the pre-'65 narrative, not really extending it. It's not a matter of the amount of time (5 - 10 year chunks as opposed to a 40 year chunk) but the fact (in my mind at least) that jazz as we knew it, as it lived and grew from the beginning, ended in the mid sixties. And so in a way Burns was correct in his series although he grossly mis-portrayed what has transpired since.

What has transpired since is a multifaceted explosion that has blurred the lines and definitions in a way that much of the new music no longer always fit the narrative. Up to that point radical developments were still seen to be contained in that narrative. Charlie Parker sometimes spoke about "bop" as separate from "jazz" but I take that to mean he was drawing a distinction between what he was doing and the "swing" style that was dominant at the time. But we still see bop as being part of the jazz narrative. So to talk about jazz now is really to have a conversation about a lot of music, more than jazz. "Jazz", whatever you want that to be, moves in a different way than before. Not big stylistic changes from the dominant trend...we don't even have trends any more, really...we have myriad directions, more than ever before and they don't all qualify as jazz (if that even matters).

I liked RC's metaphor of "consolidation at the core and movement at the edges" but even that fails at some point in that I think the focus is less on jazz per se and more on music in a broader sense and the way that jazz and/or jazz elements can be seen to act and interact in a greater whole. Just my opinion...

Personally I have no problem with the concept that jazz may be dead...or not...it really doesn't matter because music keeps moving on, no matter what you call it. For me jazz has simply merged with a lot of other music...and that's great...

[Pete C]

One might say that jazz currently is a matter of two parallel universes. On the one hand there is the greater world of jazz-informed improvisational music that is, essentially, the more forward moving universe, and in a way truer to the boundary-pushing, flux-embracing spirit of jazz--what Ellery is describing. But there is also a somewhat healthy but generally conservative-preservationist universe that represents what jazz is to the majority of jazz followers as well as to the general public with little specific knowledge of jazz history & practice. I think there's room for both, but the former universe is more likely to include the latter than vice versa.

[Richardo Caerleoni]

Pete - I respect and understand what you, Ellery and Dennis are saying.

Originally Posted by Pete C

One might say that jazz currently is a matter of two parallel universes. On the one hand there is the greater world of jazz-informed improvisational music that is, essentially, the more forward moving universe, and in a way truer to the boundary-pushing, flux-embracing spirit of jazz--what Ellery is describing. But there is also a somewhat healthy but generally conservative-preservationist universe that represents what jazz is to the majority of jazz followers as well as to the general public with little specific knowledge of jazz history & practice. I think there's room for both, but the former universe is more likely to include the latter than vice versa.

But to me there IS a distinct "jazz core"...rooted and evolved...and it runs from Baby Dodds to Max to Elvin to Blackwell to...name your name...

Equally, I find a direct line from Lester (DB Blues) to Trane - Countdown with Art Taylor to Intersteller Space with Rashid.

My fear ...and OK, maybe it is conservative (first time I've ever been called that, but I know what you mean in context !) is that the core I referred to will be washed away in some dilute mix of bland "anything" goes world music. As per the blues...people now play me so called "blues" records that sound like the Beatles on a bad day.

I still think jazz - as JAZZ- has a vital future...given enough exposure...no other music has created this ability to directly connect...Listen to Cotrane's "Welcome".(Transition) ...It's not even a solo...just a very short theme statement & repeat ...but the tone, phrase and sheer commitment burns through...as in no other music BUT jazz...

I rest my case! Hey, what do I know?

RC. Cue..."I'm Old Fashioned" from Bluetrane...

[Gary Sisco]

What Ellery and Pete said. I think of myself today as more of a music guy than a jazz guy, though I'll always love all of the music that everyone agrees is jazz (right! like there ever was one!). The movement now is more molecular, as it's not movement based as in a style, like bebop, but more in circles of cats, and even individuals, who are all incorporating everything they're hearing (in their ears and in their heads) into what they play, and there's a myriad of things for each of them to hear and take on, no two hearing the same combination of things at the same time. This is all good, to me.

But I'm also with Pete in that there's room for both. I can't think of a better way to spend a late evening than the night several of us were at the Knickerbocker for a nightcap, listening to Joanne Brackeen and Cecil McBee playing piano jazz.

One, two, many musics!