Twenty First Century Jazz

[.:.impossible]

It occurred to me while reading another thread that many of us have a different idea of who is making current, relevant music, and what constitutes that current and relevant.

In some ways, I think it is unrealistic to expect great progress in music month after month, year after year, decade after decade. In other ways, judging by the amount of recordings released by labels that claim they are barely making ends meet, there are plenty of people out there that think they are moving the chains.

Certainly, originality and innovation are not the only criteria on anyone's scorecard, though it seems these are increasingly important as we are inundated with new releases month after month.

I'll be interested to see where, if anywhere, this thread goes. I hope to get some lists here, as well as some examination of who is being considered current/relevant, and why.

[GA Russell]

I'm not really hip about what is going on now. My interest is primarily in the 50s and 60s.

That said, I'm not aware of any young musicians considered original and innovative who are playing melodies I can hum along to.

I think that the market for free jazz will forever be miniscule; and until people write songs which have the potential to become jazz standards, I see jazz petering out.

[JSngry]

21st Century Jazz will be what the 21st Century Jazz Audience(s) want it to be. Until somebody comes up with a music that is so obviously of the times that it can't be denied, look for more of the same, simply because that's what people want to hear. That means the opptions are classicism of superior technique in the service of material based on past premises (which is not to say that that material can't be quite "challenging"), the eternal greeeeeeeze, the eternal free, and Smoooooooooooth.

Our times have changed in some pretty fundamental ways. The way we percieve "reality" now is every bit as different as the "reality" which is perceived, probably more different. Sure, the fundamental things still apply as time goes by, but the context in which those things happen is a whole lot more "multi-tasked" than it once was. In a world where people routinely do 15 things at once while being bombarded by 30 other things at the same time, the only "relevance" that some guy standing in front of a rhythm section playing changes in an acceptable-enough manner is going to have is that of a quaint reminder of how things used to be. Either that, or as comfort food for people who just can't get with These Newfangled Modern Times. But after they die off...

The challenge is not to discover new information. This music already has all the information it needs, probably all it's going to get in it's current mindset, and definitely more than "most people" are equipped to handle. So the challenge now is to discover ways to deliver that information. And I'm not talking about delivering "product", I'm talking about the information in the music itself, the thoughts, emotions, languages, all that stuff. You know, the substance of the music.

Finding a vehicle to effectively communicate this information in a way that keeps it alive and vital instead of archival is something that a lot of people my age (roughly) just don't want to deal with. They seem to think that it's always been about "keeping it real", not realizing that "real" is a function of content, not of style. In a digital reality, analog reality is going to have a hard time being heard. We neep the information, but change the delivery method, if anybody can think of such a thing without feeling that they're betraying The Great Traditon.

I mean, it's cool to get a group together, play tunes/compositions, and everybody solos, but that's increasingly going to become the equivalent of spending an hour writing a letter when your kids have spent that same hour sending and receiving about 25,000 text messages, a few of which actually will lead to meaningful activity before you've even put a stamp on the envelope. Never mind getting it in the mail and waiting for it to be delivered. Your kids will have used that time to have made their first million.

Ok, I jest/exaggerate, but I am serious about this- "soloing" is not going to be what the 21st century is about, at least not as a be-all-end-all, nor is a succession of "song forms". That might be where the information was discovered, but unless we find a more relevant way to deliver it, that's also going to be where it dies.

That would be a true tragedy, but how many people are thinking that far ahead? How many are looking to the music to deliver today's headlines (don't tell me about "timelessness" and all that. "Timelessness" comes after, not before, the music delivers)? And how many people, including musicians, are using "jazz" as an oasis of "sanity" in times that just don't make sense to them?

Tell you what - the "times" ain't going to be anything other than what they will be. Deal with that and proceed accordingly.

And besides - if, in 2006, we're having to ask what "21st Century Jazz" is going to be like in, if we don't already have any really readily apparent leads as to where the music as a whole is going that's where it hasn't already been, isn't that kind of...uh....an answer in itself?

[Alexander]

If you had asked, in 1936 or 46 or 56, where jazz was going, it would have been similarly difficult to give an answer. Sure it all seems very clearly defined and linear NOW, but at the time it was something that was HAPPENING. That's what is happening today...

Edited December 19, 2006 by Alexander

[JSngry]

If you had asked, in 1936 or 46 or 56, where jazz was going, it would have been similarly difficult to give an answer.

The differnce being that in each case, the question of the then-current decade would have been in response to the previous decade's question having been answered in, by and large, no uncertain terms.

Some of us have been asking this question for at least 20 years and still don't have a satisfactory answer, which is, I think, shaping up to be a going-to-have-to-be-satisfactory-whether-we-like-it-or-not answer...

[John L]

I actually don't think that soloing is going to disappear in the 21st century. On the contrary. In the computer age, new instruments are going to appear that will allow people to communicate musical ideas much more easily and directly, and without the same need to woodshed for years to develop technique. That will give profound musical solo voices to thousands, and they will be heard...

...just a fantasy.

[.:.impossible]

This isn't really a 'where is jazz going' thread. That is for the future to decide.

[JSngry]

Ah, but the future is merely tomorrow's today.

[alocispepraluger102]

territory band 5,

frequency.

roscoe, abrams, lewis trio

those are the places it should be going.

[(BB)]

What was called jazz ain't called jazz no more.

[Rooster_Ties]

Ah, but the future is merely tomorrow's today.

[AllenLowe]

wel, I happen to know EXACTLY where it's going, or at least where it SHOULD be going - as a matter of fact I've coined a new name for the music of the future:

The Fourth Stream

[.:.impossible]

The title of the thread may have misled Jim, whose post has certainly derailed the rest of it.

Reading this board, and other non-jazz music boards, it is evident that many people find it of utmost importance to remain current, to stay ahead of the listening curve as if great progress is being made on a weekly basis.

For a music that is considered by many, including its own fans, to be a struggling, perhaps dieing breed, the amount of weekly new releases is staggering. Why is this? Do many of these small labels actually have a scene to document or are they doing it because it is the only thing they know?

I understand Jim's point about there always and forever more being more of the same. Surely these record labels aren't sitting around the table agreeing to make another investment in more of the same over and over again. Certainly, these record labels truly think that some of the recordings they are releasing present modern, relevant music, that they are presenting a group of artists that are extending beyond what has already been presented.

I also understand that originality and innovation are not the only criteria for releasing an album. Whatever the case may be, I guess I'm taking the stance that these criteria ought to be given more weight going forward.

Edited December 19, 2006 by .:.impossible

[JSngry]

Surely these record labels aren't sitting around the table agreeing to make another investment in more of the same over and over again. Certainly, these record labels truly think that some of the recordings they are releasing present modern, relevant music, that they are presenting a group of artists that are extending beyond what has already been presented.

I also understand that originality and innovation are not the only criteria for releasing an album. Whatever the case may be, I guess I'm taking the stance that these criteria ought to be given more weight going forward.

To your first point, I would say that I'm not so sure. You take a labellike Sharp Nine, and I don't think that "extending" is what they're all about. They're more of the "once good, always good" school Or you might call it the Keeping it alive" mentality. I'm not here to argue for or against that point, just to point it out.

Then you got the labels and artists who position themselves as "contemporary" or some such by combining elements of free and inside. There's certainly validity there imo, and some oftne interesting enough music. But really - is combing 40 year old music with 50 year old music really pushing the envelope, or is it just getting around to some overdue cleanup work? I can see where the labels promoting this type thing are sincere in thinking that they're "extending", because it is a type music that's not been done to death already. But again, it's an "extension" only to those so deep on the inside of the jazz world that that the rest of the music world (or the world's music) is uninteresting, unknown, and/or irrelevant. It's a weird world, that one, because the sincerity and dedication is inspiring as well as noble. But, geez, it's a big world, and relevance only to self is only going to matter so much in it.

And that goes to your second point - you're saying, I think, that "originality" and "innovation" maybe ought to be given more consideration than they are currently being given. Well, part of me hears you loud and clear, part of me says that you can only be who you are, and part of me knows deep down inside that this whole "jazz culture" has gotten so neurotic & inbred, musically and mentally, that they type of originality and innovation that we'd both no doubt like to see is going to take a lot more than the conviction that honor is all it takes.

Me being past my prime and shit, but still caring a great deal about the music itself, I'd like to issue this challenge to all young players - forget about "jazz". Forget you've ever heard it. Forget all the names, histories, etc.

Now here's the catch - do that with all the other music you've heard and learned about over the years. All of it, from the oldest to the most recent.

Now, here's the final catch - don't forget about the music itself, just forget what it's called, and forget that it matters which is which.

Now, after you've done all that, just play what you know, hear, and feel. Don't worry about what fits and what doesn't fit. If you can't make a singer hear how to fit in with those those Trane licks that aren't fitting over the hip-hop beat with the power chords underneath and the drummer's forays off into Sunny Murrayland, don't sweat it. If you all truly feel it & hear it, you'll find a way to make it fit, eventually. Just fit it, don't force it. Let it fall into place on its own terms, not yours.

Once you get there, go out and play it for people who don't know or care about "types" of music. Play it for motherfuckers who don't know A-Flat from A Train from Aaliyah from AA from AAA from A Love Supreme. Play it for them and see if they dig it. If they don't maybe it's just because they're some ignunt motherfuckers. Or it may be that you ain't playin' shit. You gonna have to figure that one out on your own. Just don't rush to judgement either way.

But if they do dig it, hey you might be on to something. You might have found some music that's not either consciously or subconsciously trying to live up to its parents out of a latent inferiority complex. And maybe then we can maybe start talking about "21st Century Jazz" as a designation of an actual music instead of a simple chronological designation as to when 20th Century Jazz is being played.

[Jim Alfredson]

Just some off the top of my head:

MMW (avant funk)

Ben Monder

Kurt Rosenwinkle

some of Scofield's recent stuff

Charlie Hunter

[.:.impossible]

Jim (b3-er), why do you consider those musicians current/relevant to the progress of the jazz 'tradition'?

re: Sangrey's tabla rasa approach, how would that be an extension of the jazz 'tradition', and not an entirely new music altogether? I'm not suggesting we start discussing what makes jazz jazz, just that I think we are again talking about the future here. There has to be some bridge between the past and the future, and that is now. What do you hear now that you think is relevant to this line of thought?

A band like Think About Life seems to be doing just this, and sounds pretty damned modern doing it, as does Califone to a different degree, though I would not consider either of them to have a connection with the jazz tradition.

[JSngry]

re: Sangrey's tabla rasa approach, how would that be an extension of the jazz 'tradition', and not an entirely new music altogether? I'm not suggesting we start discussing what makes jazz jazz, just that I think we are again talking about the future here. There has to be some bridge between the past and the future, and that is now. What do you hear now that you think is relevant to this line of thought?

Well of course I'm talking about the future. No sense trying to shape the musical past, because it's already happened. And no sense talking about shaping the musical right now, because as soon as it's here, it's gone. So what else you got left?

You want a bridge between the past and the future? I gave it to you. I didn't say forge about the music (in fact, I specifically said not to! I said forget about what it's all "supposed" to be. Big difference.

Look - if you've been touched, really touched, by jazz, or by any music, it'll be a part of you. This music's spirit has been too strong to just pass away. But the body that spirit's been being delivered is like any other body - it ain't gonna last forever w/o some unnatural assistance. To ensure a healthy body for that beautiful spirit, it's going to have to stop being about "style", because that's missing the point entirely about what it was about in the first place, which was relating to life through a music that best provided a vehicle for doing so for the people making it.

I know we still got plenty of people who best relate to 2006 life by 1956/1966/etc. music but when it gets to be as literal as it so often gets, is that really relating to life by engaging it head-on or by avoiding it to one degree or another? Is the demand for certain "criteria" to be net ultimately just a fetish of some sort, maybe even an avoidance mechanism? If it is, that's cool, I suppose, but I'd like to make the modest suggestion that if where you're from is dictating where you are (or, especially, where you're going) too much past the point of giving you an individual flavor with which to go forth, then, unless you're heading down the homestretch of life, you're really not going anywhere other than where you've already been. Might as well sit around and look at the photo albums all day.

But if you do that for too long, don't be surprised if later on in life all the pictures of you in those photo albums will be of you looking at old photos. Is that a life well-lived?

[.:.impossible]

Well of course I'm talking about the future. No sense trying to shape the musical past, because it's already happened. And no sense talking about shaping the musical right now, because as soon as it's here, it's gone. So what else you got left?

You want a bridge between the past and the future? I gave it to you. I didn't say forge about the music (in fact, I specifically said not to! I said forget about what it's all "supposed" to be. Big difference.

Then why record, period? Isn't recording, to some degree, about documentation? We know this shit doesn't sell, so I won't pretend to make it about commerce.

You make it sound like the present doesn't matter. Only the past and the future matter, and even then, the past doesn't really matter all that much. I am suggesting that now matters much more than the past or the future, always has, always will. It may be a fleeting moment, but it is the most important point in time.

I guess, by 'now', I am referring to an idea. Not the actual millisecond. 'Now' will always be a moving target. I am just curious what everyone hears as being 'now' jazz. Alexander caught shit for listing musicians that he thought was reflecting 'now'. I was hoping he, and others, would use this opportunity to discuss what their idea of what modern/relevant/current jazz music sounds like.

I am surprised that no one wants to touch this one. Seems like there are a good number of guys here who take pride in being in the moment and accept nothing less.

Thanks for thinking about this with me Jim. I always appreciate your ideas.

[.:.impossible]

I also know that there are quite a few recording musicians that use this board. I would be curious to hear what their motivation(s) are to record.

[WD45]

I know we still got plenty of people who best relate to 2006 life by 1956/1966/etc. music but when it gets to be as literal as it so often gets, is that really relating to life by engaging it head-on or by avoiding it to one degree or another? Is the demand for certain "criteria" to be net ultimately just a fetish of some sort, maybe even an avoidance mechanism? If it is, that's cool, I suppose, but I'd like to make the modest suggestion that if where you're from is dictating where you are (or, especially, where you're going) too much past the point of giving you an individual flavor with which to go forth, then, unless you're heading down the homestretch of life, you're really not going anywhere other than where you've already been. Might as well sit around and look at the photo albums all day.

But what about that paean to Bird that you wrote on another thread? You said that we need to go back to hear Bird, but yet here you say relating to life through yesterday's recordings is the equivalent of "looking at photo albums all day."

[Jim Alfredson]

Jim (b3-er), why do you consider those musicians current/relevant to the progress of the jazz 'tradition'?

Why shouldn't they be? They are creating new music, they are doing it honestly, and they incorporate the spirit of jazz. They are not trying to sound like jazz circa 1950.

As for your question of why I choose to record, because I'm foolish enough to believe that I have something to say that will add to the overall discourse of the music. Despite choosing a difficult instrument, the format that I work in (the organ led combo) is actually probably in itself easier to achieve the goal of adding to the discourse because the of the lack of much innovation within the genre.

And because it's fun!

[clifford_thornton]

I know we still got plenty of people who best relate to 2006 life by 1956/1966/etc. music but when it gets to be as literal as it so often gets, is that really relating to life by engaging it head-on or by avoiding it to one degree or another? Is the demand for certain "criteria" to be net ultimately just a fetish of some sort, maybe even an avoidance mechanism? If it is, that's cool, I suppose, but I'd like to make the modest suggestion that if where you're from is dictating where you are (or, especially, where you're going) too much past the point of giving you an individual flavor with which to go forth, then, unless you're heading down the homestretch of life, you're really not going anywhere other than where you've already been. Might as well sit around and look at the photo albums all day.

But what about that paean to Bird that you wrote on another thread? You said that we need to go back to hear Bird, but yet here you say relating to life through yesterday's recordings is the equivalent of "looking at photo albums all day."

Well, I have eaten my hat on occasion regarding my own feelings about Bird's relevance to where I'm at, but this might be of interest to the discussion at hand:

Dizzy Reece Interview

[JSngry]

But what about that paean to Bird that you wrote on another thread? You said that we need to go back to hear Bird, but yet here you say relating to life through yesterday's recordings is the equivalent of "looking at photo albums all day."

I'm deeply inspired by my late father damn near every day. But I don't wear his clothes.

[John L]

I still hear things all the time in recordings of the 50s, 60s, or even earlier that take me places that I have never been.

[WD45]

But what about that paean to Bird that you wrote on another thread? You said that we need to go back to hear Bird, but yet here you say relating to life through yesterday's recordings is the equivalent of "looking at photo albums all day."

I'm deeply inspired by my late father damn near every day. But I don't wear his clothes.

That doesn't seem to be a contradiction.