Twenty First Century Jazz

[Alexander Hawkins]

IMHO there's a few straw men being erected here...

The risk with generalisations about younger generations is clear...and if you generalise, you're almost always going to fail to notice the vanguard of anything.

[Simon Weil]

Alright, I'm going to put my foot straight in now. But, if you really want to reconnect up with popular culture, it's clear to me that you need vocals. And not just Jazz vocals, but pop vocals. Somehow I have the idea that if something like the Joe Fonda/Michael Jefry Stevens group (w. Herb Robertson) did a record with the vocalist from Portishead (whose name now escapes me), you might get something interesting. There are strangish, off-the-wall pop(ish) vocalists who might meld with the unexpectedness and deep resources of Jazz, yet at the same time provide access to a wider audience.

I know there have been attempts (e.g. the Joni Mitchell stuff), but...now....

I'll stop painting by numbers.

Simon Weil

Edited December 21, 2006 by Simon Weil

[.:.impossible]

I think that we all just need to be true to ourselves, our time, and our sensibilities. I think that musicians should play the music that is in them, that is a part of them, that corresponds to their past, present, and future. The relevance to the past, present, or future of greater society will fall into place by itself. Trying to artficially project it into the future is no less a problem than hiding it somewhere back in the past.

Absolutely. To me, this is implied. Now, what musicians do you feel are sincerely doing that today?

I personally don't think the future of jazz is going to be a fusion with house music (which should be dead by now anyway... the drugs have changed) or other pop elements. Didn't house music try to bring in jazz influences in the early-nineties anyway? I don't really try to understand what the future of jazz is going to be, and I don't understand why people continue to try to assimilate this music within other musics, as if it doesn't have enough to stand on its own.

Mitch had an opinion.

[JSngry]

It's not about assimilating the music into/with/whatever other musics. It's about learning from the rest of the world some very basic truths about where people are (which is for the most part not where "we" are) and putting them to use.

It's really not that complicated.

[John L]

Jim: I agree with everything that you wrote in your first post. But I am not sure about the sentiments in the second.

You brought up Miles. He is indeed an interesting example of someone who succeeded in consciously updating his sound in a profound way. What he achieved between 1968-1974 is inspirational. But I would consider that to be an exceptional case. By contrast, look at Miles post-retirement. If you ask me, he and Wynton were two of a kind during that period. Miles was consciously trying to project himself into a future that wasn't his to be had in the same way that Wynton was trying to take refuge in a past that wasn't his.

Sure, the current technological revolution is changing sensibilities and the way that people perceive the world. That doesn't mean to me that mature middle-aged musicians who have pursued a consistent and fulfilling musical direction based on their pre-revolutionary values and sensibilities should be forced to take heed, change directions, "put on their sons' clothes," and cater to the new generation. On the contrary, that strikes me as a recipe for almost certain failure.

[JSngry]

Sure, the current technological revolution is changing sensibilities and the way that people perceive the world. That doesn't mean to me that mature middle-aged musicians who have pursued a consistent and fulfilling musical direction based on their pre-revolutionary values and sensibilities should be forced to take heed, change directions, "put on their sons' clothes," and cater to the new generation. On the contrary, that strikes me as a recipe for almost certain failure.

Did I ever suggest that old folks try to pretend to be kids? No, and with good reason - I'm old enough to remember Big Bands full of old folks trying to play "rock". It weren't pretty. On the other hand, I'm old enough to remember gene ammons, so I ain't jumping to any conclusions too hastily...

But I'm not talking to old folks, I'm talking to younger players, the ones who are coming to jazz not because it's in their blood, but because it's in their mind that this is serious music, by god, and I'm a serious motherfucker, so goddamit, I'm not going to pollute my bad self by straying from the fold, it's SWING BABY, SWING, CHING-CHINGA-FUCKING-CHING-A-(and now, in tribute to Elvin)BADIDDELYBOOM.

Yawn. A nerd is a nerd. And a jazz nerd is even more of one. Jeezus kids, you're supposed to piss us off, not lick our asses.

I better stop now before I get too worked up...

Miles? Say what you will about the post-retirement stuff, but ask youself this - If you really want/need to play instrumental popjazz, what makes a more, ummm...substantive role model - a Yellowjackets side or Amandala? That's a no-brainer afaic.

And what are we to make of somebody like Joe Zawinul, who came in one side, went out the other, and is still going? At what point are we to say, "C'on, Joe, you're too old for that shit. Time to settle down and play "Hippodelphia" for the rest of your life"? Never I hope.

I keep having nightmares about being 70-something, getting called to play a jazz gig, showing up, and there's all these bald guys with oversized glasses and beards (gotsta be beards) and a 19-year-old drummer who thinks it's A Real Honor to play with us (and who can't get a gig w/people his own age...), and the crowd is mostly younger people who come out of cluelessness, curiosity, a mixture of both, or else just being there for no good reason whatsomeevr. Them and a few house drunks who may or may not be between the ages of 30 & 97. The pianist is mightily jacked to have this gig, and is just besides himself when he turns to me and virtually orgasms while saying, "Hey man, let's play NARDIS!!!"

I...would...rather...die. Seriously.

Dude, I've always been a natural "eclectic" and see no reason to stop now. And I don't see any reason why I can't be influenced in a positive way by things like energy, vibe, etc. w/o having to resort to mere mimicry. It's one thing to mature joyfully and gracefully, to maintain an interest in things new & interesting while not necessarily doing all those things, to be more about the appreciation of them and the pleasures they offer than hopping aboard a bandwagon for futile commercial ends. It's something else entirely to reach a point in life and say, that's it, there's nothing else, I'm moving to (insert complacency center of your choice here) to play my shit over and over and over and over. Later for that shit. Much later, as in never.

We can't help but get old. But we sure as hell can keep from no longer being open and full of curiosity, the joy of discovery, and the thrill of seeing the world change & evolve. Life is a blessing, not a curse, and appreciation is called for, I believe. If I ever reach the point in life where I lose that spirit, kill me. Immediately. And yes, I'm serious. Like a motherfucker.

In fact, kill all the "jazz musicians" who are at that point now, be they 25 or 65. There won't be all that many left, I'm afraid, but the ones that are will be choice.

(and P.S. regarding house - I've heard some Masters At Work shit with Gene Perez on bass that swings - honest-to-god effortlessly and gracefully SWINGS - harder than 99% of the new jazz I've heard in the last 20 years. Tell me why I shouldn't be impressed.)

Edited December 21, 2006 by JSngry

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Well, I wrote this during the morning and it seems that Jim said it in two and a bit lines

I understand what Jim has been saying is that developments in music arise out of cultural changes. Innovators are members of the audience; part of the same culture; subject to the same social, economic, cultural and political pressures. Whatever we think, we can’t hold back these developments but can only respond to them. But, if we’re to try to see how music will change, we need to get some kind of grip on how society is likely to change.

If, as I do, we agree with Eric Hobsbawm’s analysis, in “The age of extremes” that the short twentieth century lasted from 1914 to 1991, we’re already a decade and a half into the twenty-first. And we can see what the great world issue, that has informed the whole period since 1991, is already. And we can see that it will not stop being the great issue for some considerable time. But we need to think of this issue, not as a military clash between “militant Islam” and “the West”, but in terms of its cultural aspects and impacts.

The differences between the two cultural forces are very deep. We often forget that concepts such as freedom, which to us are so deeply ingrained as to seem universal, are by no means universal. I recently read that most of the world’s languages have no word for freedom; the concept is foreign to their cultures; the words used in these languages have all been borrowed from one European language or another. Individualism also has only a limited place in many cultures of the Middle East. The western attitude of “pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start all over again” in response to a reverse, even a dreadful one, also has no place there; instead there is the concept of unending vengeance. Though we may think that our world view is better, or perhaps more pragmatic, we are learning (some of us) that we cannot enforce it at the point of a gun.

The future seems to me to hold a situation in which both cultures, rather than attempting to enforce their ways on the other, will have to persuade, and to learn from, each other. That, to me, implies the possibility of deeply significant cultural shifts on the part of the West, as well as on the part of the Middle East and other Islamic cultures.

How might this affect music in the future?

I think that the process of the Islamic cultures and those of the West moving towards a rapprochement will result in more, and better, collaborative efforts in music. We already have seen quite a few people like Ry Cooder, Toumani Diabate, Ketama, Ali Farka Toure and Robert Lahoud involving themselves in such collaborative efforts. In my view, not many have been successful so far, possibly because there is insufficient deep understanding on the part of he participants of each other’s culture for a new thing that is not one, not the other, nor something that sounds cobbled together, but something whole, to emerge. Or perhaps none of the participants is prepared to give up anything towards this end. The most successful of these collaborations, so far, seems to be Africando; an organisation of US Salsa musicians and African singers. Such artistic success as Africando has managed has probably been the result of Boncana Maiga’s education – a Malian, his musical studies were pursued in Cuba. But, despite the genuine excitement of Africando’s recordings, they are genuinely artificial – backing tracks are laid in America and the singers are recorded in Paris and different cities in Africa. (Though there is a live album, which I mean to get next year.)

Is that four cents worth? (Dollar still declining.)

MG

Edited December 21, 2006 by The Magnificent Goldberg

[Larry Kart]

Miles? Say what you will about the post-retirement stuff, but ask youself this - If you really want/need to play instrumental popjazz, what makes a more, ummm...substantive role model - a Yellowjackets side or Amandala? That's a no-brainer afaic.

I'm pretty much of an outsider when it comes to this particular aspect of this whole big topic, but I ask in all innocence about "If you really want/need to play instrumental popjazz..." -- "need" I think I get, but give me a recent notable example of "want" in this realm? And how do you yourself make that distinction between "need" and "want" here and/or assume that other music-makers are making it?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Miles? Say what you will about the post-retirement stuff, but ask youself this - If you really want/need to play instrumental popjazz, what makes a more, ummm...substantive role model - a Yellowjackets side or Amandala? That's a no-brainer afaic.

I'm pretty much of an outsider when it comes to this particular aspect of this whole big topic, but I ask in all innocence about "If you really want/need to play instrumental popjazz..." -- "need" I think I get, but give me a recent notable example of "want" in this realm? And how do you yourself make that distinction between "need" and "want" here and/or assume that other music-makers are making it?

Not sure what you mean by notable example, Larry. Gerald Albright? Someone who CAN play his guts out but doesn't. He's making a choice but I don't know what his motivations are.

MG

[Larry Kart]

Miles? Say what you will about the post-retirement stuff, but ask youself this - If you really want/need to play instrumental popjazz, what makes a more, ummm...substantive role model - a Yellowjackets side or Amandala? That's a no-brainer afaic.

I'm pretty much of an outsider when it comes to this particular aspect of this whole big topic, but I ask in all innocence about "If you really want/need to play instrumental popjazz..." -- "need" I think I get, but give me a recent notable example of "want" in this realm? And how do you yourself make that distinction between "need" and "want" here and/or assume that other music-makers are making it?

Not sure what you mean by notable example, Larry. Gerald Albright? Someone who CAN play his guts out but doesn't. He's making a choice but I don't know what his motivations are.

MG

What I mean, I guess, is someone who in some respect CAN play -- as you say Albright can -- who gives us some instrumental popjazz (and I assume that would mean some instrumental popjazz that is in fact fairly popular) because, as Jim put it, he really wants/needs to. To my mind, this suggests that Jim (and perhaps others) might be making a distinction between really "need" and really "want" here? If so, I think I want to know more about that.

[JSngry]

Need/want, I guess, is a matter of motivation. You got some guys who play this stuff because they like it like they like other things, it's something they do because they enjoy it, but it's one of many things they enjoy.

That's "want" to me. Examples would be, say, Grover Washington, Joe Sample, Chris Botti, & David Sanborn, all players whom I'm not ashamed to say that I respect and at times genuinely enjoy as recreational listening. "Commercial" or not, they bring a very musical mind & spirit to their proceedings far more often than not, and I can often enough find something there that makes me say yeah, ok, that's nice. I don't feel insulted by that type thing.

"Need" would be when somebody goes that direction because that's the music they feel compelled to play because that's their language, the home of their voice. Examples? Nationally, I can't think of any right off hand, but locally, there's any number of people who take to that stuff naturally and who wouldn't want to play any other type music. Good for them, even if it's the "want to" types who seem to have the edge for me, just because they have a broader pallate with which to paint, both technically & emotionally. But that's just me.

Noticably absent from the above are the true cookie-cutter "Smooth Jazz" types, because frankly, it sucks, and so do they.

[JSngry]

Oh, really, yeah, ok. I mean somebody who genuinely feels a compulsion to do it, not somebody who phones it in just to get the bread. Believe it or not, not all "commercial" music is made strictly for the money. Some people actually enjoy making it!

[Alexander Hawkins]

But I'm not talking to old folks, I'm talking to younger players, the ones who are coming to jazz not because it's in their blood, but because it's in their mind that this is serious music, by god, and I'm a serious motherfucker, so goddamit, I'm not going to pollute my bad self by straying from the fold, it's SWING BABY, SWING, CHING-CHINGA-FUCKING-CHING-A-(and now, in tribute to Elvin)BADIDDELYBOOM.

This is sort of what I was getting at with the 'straw man' comment. There are a frightening number of these guys around - the 'ching ching a ching' brigade, for sure. And believe me, I share your gall towards them! But do any of us actually think of them as improvising jazz musicians? Certainly all my peers in improvisation think of these as repertory musicians. These guys are not where jazz is, even if what they play shares an amount of technical vocabulary with 'jazz'. I think this point of view has been current among a lot of musicians since the neoclassicism of the 80s?

[JSngry]

This is sort of what I was getting at with the 'straw man' comment. There are a frightening number of these guys around - the 'ching ching a ching' brigade, for sure. And believe me, I share your gall towards them! But do any of us actually think of them as improvising jazz musicians?

Outside of the cave, if there's more of them than us (and more people wanting to hear them than us), does it really matter what we think?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

This is sort of what I was getting at with the 'straw man' comment. There are a frightening number of these guys around - the 'ching ching a ching' brigade, for sure. And believe me, I share your gall towards them! But do any of us actually think of them as improvising jazz musicians?

Outside of the cave, if there's more of them than us (and more people wanting to hear them than us), does it really matter what we think?

I don't know whether this is aposite to this bit of conversation. A friend was taken, by her husband, to NYC for the weekend for her birthday a year or so ago. Part of the package was a night at the Vanguard. Neither of them are jazz fans. The band was Jeff "Tain" Watts'. Now I've only got one album with Watts playing - a Mark Whitfield, which I don't suppose is typical of his work with his own band - so I don't know what the music was like. But I suspect it's pretty much what you're talking about. They came back and said that it was great! So somehow, Watts is putting on a good show that can get through to pop/rock listeners. So, good.

MG

[Larry Kart]

Need/want, I guess, is a matter of motivation. You got some guys who play this stuff because they like it like they like other things, it's something they do because they enjoy it, but it's one of many things they enjoy.

That's "want" to me. Examples would be, say, Grover Washington, Joe Sample, Chris Botti, & David Sanborn, all players whom I'm not ashamed to say that I respect and at times genuinely enjoy as recreational listening. "Commercial" or not, they bring a very musical mind & spirit to their proceedings far more often than not, and I can often enough find something there that makes me say yeah, ok, that's nice. I don't feel insulted by that type thing.

"Need" would be when somebody goes that direction because that's the music they feel compelled to play because that's their language, the home of their voice. Examples? Nationally, I can't think of any right off hand, but locally, there's any number of people who take to that stuff naturally and who wouldn't want to play any other type music. Good for them, even if it's the "want to" types who seem to have the edge for me, just because they have a broader pallate with which to paint, both technically & emotionally. But that's just me.

Noticably absent from the above are the true cookie-cutter "Smooth Jazz" types, because frankly, it sucks, and so do they.

Again, my experience is limited and random, if only because I only listen to things that I decide upfront are going to be worth paying attention to (sometimes I'm disappointed, of course) or to things that just happen to be around and grab my attention. In the latter vein, I've heard in particular a fair amount of Sanborn over the years, just because that's almost unavoidable, and once on the radio there cropped up a

Sanborn version of some standard I think -- maybe "Laura"? -- that seemed a quantum jump beyond what I was used to hearing from him, not at all in style but in the realm of conviction/intensity. I would hunt down and buy that track if I could -- not only to dig it but also to think about how and why it's different, if in fact it was.

[Larry Kart]

Checking around, it seems like what I might have heard is a track from Sanborn's "Pearls," which is all or mostly standards (but "Laura"-less).

[JSngry]

No "Laura" on Pearls, but that one's got some other really nice ballads w/good arrangements by Johnny Mandel & a gripping cameo by Jimmy Scott on "For All We Know", along with some not-so-nice stuff. Recommended if you can find a used copy at a reasonable price.

[JSngry]

I would hunt down and buy that track if I could -- not only to dig it but also to think about how and why it's different, if in fact it was.

Well, it is, and it isn't. Sanborn was a master at "fitting the message to the medium" on those cameos he did on all the hits of the 70s. Eight bars or so, say what you got to say within the context, and then get out. If you listen to what he does in those few bars, it's actually quite musical, usually.

Not at all unlike the soloists in the big bands in the 78 era, if you can entertain that notion.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I would hunt down and buy that track if I could -- not only to dig it but also to think about how and why it's different, if in fact it was.

Well, it is, and it isn't. Sanborn was a master at "fitting the message to the medium" on those cameos he did on all the hits of the 70s. Eight bars or so, say what you got to say within the context, and then get out. If you listen to what he does in those few bars, it's actually quite musical, usually.

Not at all unlike the soloists in the big bands in the 78 era, if you can entertain that notion.

Absolutely. Jazzmen I used to know in the '60s used to say, "if you can't say something in 4 bars, you can't say anythin in 17 choruses." With Sanborn, I'm afraid, he CAN say something in 4 bars, but not in two or three choruses, far less 17.

He may be one of my favourites, but that's a bit true of Hank Crawford, Sanborn's big inspiration, as well; a big soul and sound to die for, but not big on improvisation - at least on alto; he can play anyone under the table on bari.

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

And I forgot to mention, among those who seem to be bringing music together, there's Maaskool, a Wolof living in the US, who successfully integrated Mbalax, Reggae and Hip Hop in his album "Massa thiono". His version of "Voodoo child" is really something to hear!

MG

[.:.impossible]

So, are you guys saying that today's jazz avant-garde is in a fusion music, whether it be popjazz or house jazz, or other static rhythm musics? That seems to be the direction that this discussion took.

I can't imagine that David Sanborn would have come up in this discussion if we were having it in 1976, 1986, 1996, much less 2006. If he were ever relevant to the core of jazz, it was for a short period of time because this is the most I've ever read about him as a jazz musician. If I'm wrong, I don't want to know. Certainly not my idea of jazz, but at least we're getting some opinions.

I'm still suprised that so many others have not chimed in. No one else has an actual opinion on where jazz music is today?

I think it IS important to talk about now. I think it DOES matter what we (you) think. I'm interested in examples of what you think is relevant to NOW. What will influence tomorrow, not what tomorrow will sound like.

[Joe G]

I'm still suprised that so many others have not chimed in. No one else has an actual opinion on where jazz music is today?

I think it IS important to talk about now. I think it DOES matter what we (you) think. I'm interested in examples of what you think is relevant to NOW. What will influence tomorrow, not what tomorrow will sound like.

Whenever this question is posed, I have to ask: relevant to whom? While there may be a overall feel of the times we are in (like, a pressure cooker), and in a sense we are all in the same boat, there is just such a mulitplicity of perspectives, needs, and levels of understanding and personal development that I can't imagine any one approach to music encompassing, expressing, or reflecting it all. So if music is a mirror, then the current scene should be fractured, all over the map, suffering from information overload, and lurching both forwards and back, as is our world. Alex Grey gives an interesting analogy. In ages past, he says, art could be seen as a game, with clearly defined rules, and different "teams", or schools, trying to create masterpieces to score points. Today, the art world is like a field where everyone has their own ball, and is running wildly in every direction. Does that sound like the current state of jazz?

I can give examples of the music that is relevant to me, but that is only music that is meaningful to my particular journey through life. Two nights ago I was up late, listening to The Lark Ascending by candlelight. Last night I was grooving with a friend to Monday Michiru and Ursula Rucker, (courtesy of J. Sangrey), before working on some of our own music. Before that, I was enthralled by

clip of Luciana Souza, who is someone speaking to the NOW as I feel it.

What will influence the musicians of tomorrow will be the events of tomorrow. 15 or 20 years from now, we could be experiencing a very different societal arrangement. Things may have to be restructured on all levels due to the consequences of climate change, peak oil, dwindling resourses (especially water), and the like. Who knows what shape that will all take, and how it will effect the artistic communities that have been built up in the current era? But, as Sangrey and I have been discussing -- keep an eye on women (like Michiru, Souza, Geri Allen, et al.) to be stepping up to the plate with an answer.

Just my opinion.

[.:.impossible]

Thanks Joe. Relevant to YOU is the answer to your first question. If you don't know Juana Molina, I think she is also another female to check out, though not part of the jazz world.

[AllenLowe]

I've read only about 80 percent of this thread so forgive me if this post seems to miss some points - maybe it will and maybe it won't. But when it comes to the future of jazz and pop music I am convinced that even we, as non-academics (largely) spend too much time on social questions and context and how they effect what will or won't happen to the music. I will paraphrase the late Richard Gilman, whom I cite frequently, that art is an alternative to history, an alternative reality, a counter-history that will not be contained or limited by social or historical markers. It tells us not necessarily what we have been doing and thinking but what we will be doing and thinking NEXT, before we even know that this will occur -

feel free to ignore me here - as my wife and kids do when I make such statements -