Survey: Why Aren't More Young People Being Exposed To Jazz?

[Hot Ptah]

But, to pick up on Larry Kart's point again, none of the musicians on that list are likely to attract a mass audience while also creating great music, the way that an Erroll Garner did.

Since the members of this super-informed jazz forum have to discuss among themselves whether any creative musicians are out there, and then a well-informed member puts together a list which contains some names which I (for one) have never heard of, what chance do these musicians have of breaking through to popular consciousness, or the attention of young people?

To pick up on Jim Sangry's posts, many of these musicians are not young, and will not be part of the "building of new houses" that Jim wrote about.

I guess I am left with the thought that young people are being exposed to jazz in unprecendented extensive ways, they aren't interested much in jazz, and why should we expect that they would be. Jazz does not speak to their need for music in their social lives with their peers. There are creative musicians out there, but they are as disconnected to the young people's lives as the currently great artists who work in sculpture are disconnected to mine. A towering sculptor could emerge who would create great art and would sweep the world, even coming to my attention, a person with no real interest in sculpture. There could be a jazz musician or musicians like that, who would create excitement in the young people. I don't think that there is anyone like that out there today.

Edited March 5, 2008 by Hot Ptah

[JSngry]

I guess I am left with the thought that young people are being exposed to jazz in unprecendented extensive ways, they aren't interested much in jazz, and why should we expect that they would be. Jazz does not speak to their need for music in their social lives with their peers.

Except... in the "dance underground"/Gilles Peterson/etc. camps, all of whom are primarily "young" by any reasonable standard (although none of them would be considered "mass movements" by any stretch of the imagination), there is a considerable amount of interest in "contemporary" music with a jazz "flavor". The nature of this flavor ranges from a superficial stylistic affectation to a deeper adoption of the jazz, for lack of a better term, "state of mind", although it is of course coming through a "young" POV and only partially related to what we know as the "jazz state of mind". The former has been with us forever, but the latter has me thinking/wondering if this is not how jazz will best "survive" into the 21st century, not as a "style", but as a "spirit", a motivator. Bury the body and let the spirit go where it will go & be had by whom it will be had in whatever form it will assume.

Me, at this point, I'm ok with that. YMMV.

[seeline]

I can't knock Gilles Peterson - he's got very good taste, and has gotten a lot of nifty music reissued. If anything, i wish that people like him got more media exposure....

As for "building houses," I do think a lot of it comes down to allowing people to discover things on their own, as (likely) most everyone here did. One thing I do recall from when I was very young: My mom played a lot of jazz LPs, and was happy that I enjoyed many of them. But she didn't give me info. - she kept on playing records, allowing me to make my own choices as far as what I liked and what I didn't. (She also put up with a lot of "bad" music that I liked.)

There was info. available to me, if i wanted it, but she never pushed it on me.

I think that's crucial.

Edited March 5, 2008 by seeline

[A Lark Ascending]

For the past twenty or so years one of the things that strikes me about jazz is that the "Great Man" theory has pretty much run its course. We can't be waiting around for the "next Bird," the "next Trane" or the "next Ornette." There have been lots of musicians moving in a variety of directions and there is no one "hot new sound." It has been and will likely continue to be a period of consolidation and retrenchment. The stunning variety of traditions and approaches that have been incorporated into jazz in the last couple of decades is - to me - the key to why this period is just as exciting as any in the music's history (even - perhaps - more exciting.) It's about evolution rather than revolution.

I agree 100%.

Look at the evolution of most things and you begin with an 'heroic age' where innovators stand like gods (or the history is simplified to give them greater prominence); but as things broaden it becomes harder to isolate the heroes as things develop in a thousand different directions at once.

No-one is sitting around waiting for the next Shakespeare or the next Tolstoy, yet thrilling new literature gets written. But instead of having heroic 'must reads' we all carve out our own paths from amongst the multitude of possibilities.

Waiting for a jazz Messiah is a bit like waiting for.....a Messiah! He's much more likely to be a very naughty boy (or girl)!

***********

It almost seems to me as if there is a craving for a more united world with common values - governments claim to want this, commerce would love it (much easier to sell the work of commonly accepted heroes in bulk [how they must crave a Miles Davis!] than small units of a multitude of performers with more local audiences).

Yet I doubt if that is where the future lies - I suspect we're in an era of increasing localisation where we're all carving out our own areas of interest from a massive amount on offer. What's interesting is that the localisation is not geographical - it's now possible to get a fascination with, say, Australian or Italian jazz from the other side of the world and follow it, without it being part of some overall trend or fashion.

I very much like this.

[A Lark Ascending]

I guess I am left with the thought that young people are being exposed to jazz in unprecendented extensive ways, they aren't interested much in jazz, and why should we expect that they would be. Jazz does not speak to their need for music in their social lives with their peers.

Except... in the "dance underground"/Gilles Peterson/etc. camps, all of whom are primarily "young" by any reasonable standard (although none of them would be considered "mass movements" by any stretch of the imagination), there is a considerable amount of interest in "contemporary" music with a jazz "flavor". The nature of this flavor ranges from a superficial stylistic affectation to a deeper adoption of the jazz, for lack of a better term, "state of mind", although it is of course coming through a "young" POV and only partially related to what we know as the "jazz state of mind". The former has been with us forever, but the latter has me thinking/wondering if this is not how jazz will best "survive" into the 21st century, not as a "style", but as a "spirit", a motivator. Bury the body and let the spirit go where it will go & be had by whom it will be had in whatever form it will assume.

Me, at this point, I'm ok with that. YMMV.

Very true - every year the Cheltenham Festival organisers put on a more dance/techno/drum'n bass (apologies if that terminology is yesterday!) aspect to it, with people associated with 'core' jazz involved, and it packs the Town Hall. There's definately a big market amongst many young people for music that side-steps the commercial and does things differently, whilst linking to the music they know (as jazz-rock once did).

What will not attract nearly such a large audience is selling it to them as a passage to something more authentic from the past. Get them thrilled about something that is part of the current culture and some might just want to find out where that sax playing or strange drumming came from, some might wonder about the strange names being dropped and seek them out - as those of us who came from 70s rock once sought out Miles, Coltrane, Messiaen because they were name-checked by the bands we loved.

But it should never be about 'progressing' in your listening to jazz or classical or whatever. Exploring music should be about adding to the richness of your listening, not trading up!

[seeline]

Well, it comes down to "What's in a name?," doesn't it?

"Classical" is used as a label for everything from light entertainment (operetta, Strauss waltzes) to Beethoven's string quartets to Cage to... you name it, it's in there.

I think younger audiences are just as capable of discovering all kinds of music on their own as a lot of us Baby Boomers were, y'know?

(I could get on the soapbox about "authentic," but Bev, you probably already know what I'd say, and I'm sure it's been said many times in other threads, by other posters, so... )

Edited March 5, 2008 by seeline

[A Lark Ascending]

I think younger audiences are just as capable of discovering all kinds of music on their own as a lot of us Baby Boomers were, y'know?

Younger people are as capable of doing EVERYTHING as us Baby Boomers!

(I could get on the soapbox about "authentic," but Bev, you probably already know what I'd say, and I'm sure it's been said many times in other threads, by other posters, so... )

Don't go there, Seeline!

[seeline]

Re. "younger people," I put that winking icon there for a reason!

[A Lark Ascending]

Re. "younger people," I put that winking icon there for a reason!

I'm smiley-blind. But I got the irony.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Very true - every year the Cheltenham Festival organisers put on a more dance/techno/drum'n bass (apologies if that terminology is yesterday!) aspect to it, with people associated with 'core' jazz involved, and it packs the Town Hall. There's definately a big market amongst many young people for music that side-steps the commercial and does things differently, whilst linking to the music they know (as jazz-rock once did).

Bev, if you clock that this is going to happen this year as well, do let me know. I might drag myself there. It's May or something, isn't it?

MG

[A Lark Ascending]

Very true - every year the Cheltenham Festival organisers put on a more dance/techno/drum'n bass (apologies if that terminology is yesterday!) aspect to it, with people associated with 'core' jazz involved, and it packs the Town Hall. There's definately a big market amongst many young people for music that side-steps the commercial and does things differently, whilst linking to the music they know (as jazz-rock once did).

Bev, if you clock that this is going to happen this year as well, do let me know. I might drag myself there. It's May or something, isn't it?

MG

How about:

Heritage Orchestra

with Bonobo

Event J27 at Cheltenham Town Hall (unreserved seating)

Town Hall Main Stage, Saturday 3rd May, 10pm (180 mins)

Tickets: £17

Join us on a journey of orchestral beats and cinematic textures with the almighty 35-piece Heritage Orchestra, providing totally unique orchestral reinterpretations of world renowned electronic artist, Amon Tobin (Ninja Tune), as well as music by Plaid (Warp). Expect an explosive mix of beats, soaring strings, brass, wind, and percussion that bounces between jazz, electronica, classical, and other cross-genre forms. Not forgetting DJ host and Ninja Tune wonderboy - Bonobo, who's DJ'ing is rocking audiences all over the world with his mix of hip-hop, broken beats, latin, funk and soul. A clubbers delight!

or

Mr Scruff

Event J39 at Cheltenham Town Hall (unreserved seating)

Town Hall Main Stage, Sunday 4th May, 9:30pm (270 mins – finish time 2am)

Tickets: £17

After his sell-out performance in 2005, the fantastic Mr Scruff returns to Cheltenham to perform one of his legendary sets of jazz, breakbeat, hip-hop and more. Keep it unreal!

I'm not sure if these would be up your street - but they are clearly youth-aimed. The last one is 4 1/2 hours in an unseated venue...I like my seat!

[seeline]

The last one is 4 1/2 hours in an unseated venue...I like my seat!

I bet you could have your seat and some dancing, too - sounds like this one is all about dancing.

[A Lark Ascending]

The last one is 4 1/2 hours in an unseated venue...I like my seat!

I bet you could have your seat and some dancing, too - sounds like this one is all about dancing.

Undoubtedly.

The Town Hall is a Victorian/Edwardian thing, with an upstairs balcony. They have seats upstairs during dancy things but completely clear the main hall area. It's actually pretty soulless for concerts but works for the bopping gigs. Ornette Coleman played there a couple of years back and seemed to vanish the coldness of the place. But I've seen both Van Morrison and the WSQ there and found it hard to get engaged.

I'll be in one of the other seated venues with my pipe and slippers!

[Guest Bill Barton]

To get back to the original premise of the thread and whether or not it's true, check this out please:

Paul de Barros story in today's Seattle Times

In this area at least, many young people are indeed exposed to jazz on a regular basis. And it's not the "edgier" varieties for the most part, such as the folks on my list in post #97, but music firmly in the mainstream (for lack of a better term.)

One of the things about all of this that gives me pause is the emphasis on competition, pitting high school and college jazz bands against each other like they were football teams in a bowl game. How do others feel about this? I'd be particularly interested in reactions from music teachers and educators in general.

And, yes, I agree with Larry and Jim that it does seem unlikely that another musician (or musicians) will ever reach the widespread acceptance of an Erroll Garner without compromising their art. But is this really important? Jazz has always existed on the fringes of mass culture, sometimes moving in a bit like it did during the big band era, and then receding. Many of us were attracted to the music in the first place because it is something of an outsider, the underdog (just as long as we're not "beneath" it everything should be okay ).

I really like Bev's point too: "...I suspect we're in an era of increasing localisation where we're all carving out our own areas of interest from a massive amount on offer. What's interesting is that the localisation is not geographical - it's now possible to get a fascination with, say, Australian or Italian jazz from the other side of the world and follow it, without it being part of some overall trend or fashion."

P.S. Regarding that list on post #97: I'm also sure that there are scores of people all over the world who are tinkering with traditions and tweaking forms on a similarly creative level whom I have not yet heard of or heard. "Seek and Listen" as Rahsaan Roland Kirk used to say...

Edited March 5, 2008 by Bill Barton

[Hot Ptah]

The Essentially Ellington high school jazz band competition article raises a point that I have often wondered about.

Many high schools in the U.S. have a school band program. Most of those programs have a jazz big band, sometimes called a stage band, as one of a very few options open to band members.

However, even with these thousands of high school jazz big bands playing all over the nation, being part of the regular curriculum of high schools everywhere, very few high school students know anything about jazz or like to listen to jazz. There is no spillover, or very little, from the school jazz band into the musical taste of the student population. Why not?

In 2006, the jazz band at the high school in my neighborhood, Shawnee Mission East, was one of 15 national finalists in the Essentially Ellington competition. There has been no groundswell of interest in jazz in this area, I can assure you, among young people or anyone else.

[Guest Bill Barton]

The Essentially Ellington high school jazz band competition article raises a point that I have often wondered about.

Many high schools in the U.S. have a school band program. Most of those programs have a jazz big band, sometimes called a stage band, as one of a very few options open to band members.

However, even with these thousands of high school jazz big bands playing all over the nation, being part of the regular curriculum of high schools everywhere, very few high school students know anything about jazz or like to listen to jazz. There is no spillover, or very little, from the school jazz band into the musical taste of the student population. Why not?

In 2006, the jazz band at the high school in my neighborhood, Shawnee Mission East, was one of 15 national finalists in the Essentially Ellington competition. There has been no groundswell of interest in jazz in this area, I can assure you, among young people or anyone else.

Interesting... Did the school do any promotion around the significance of their band making the finals? And did the news media in your area take any notice?

Here in Seattle we're lucky to have a full-time jazz critic (de Barros) on staff at the Times. He's also (time to haul the flamethrowers out of the holsters, boys ) the correspondent for Downbeat.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Bill Barton

[Hot Ptah]

The Essentially Ellington high school jazz band competition article raises a point that I have often wondered about.

Many high schools in the U.S. have a school band program. Most of those programs have a jazz big band, sometimes called a stage band, as one of a very few options open to band members.

However, even with these thousands of high school jazz big bands playing all over the nation, being part of the regular curriculum of high schools everywhere, very few high school students know anything about jazz or like to listen to jazz. There is no spillover, or very little, from the school jazz band into the musical taste of the student population. Why not?

In 2006, the jazz band at the high school in my neighborhood, Shawnee Mission East, was one of 15 national finalists in the Essentially Ellington competition. There has been no groundswell of interest in jazz in this area, I can assure you, among young people or anyone else.

Interesting... Did the school do any promotion around the significance of their band making the finals? And did the news media in your area take any notice?

Here in Seattle we're lucky to have a full-time jazz critic (de Barros) on staff at the Times. He's also (time to haul the flamethrowers out of the holsters, boys ) the correspondent for Downbeat.

It was the subject of local newspaper stories, and the high school band in question got to play a special concert at the Gem Theater in the 18th and Vine museum district. It was well publicized.

We have a great weekly jazz writer at the Kansas City Star.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Hot Ptah

[Guest Bill Barton]

Sounds like they did their part

[crabgrass]

"Jazz may not be dead, but it's smelling funnier by the minute. It's unfortunate, but unless some remarkable players come up with a startling new sound for jazz, it sure looks like "jazz" is very nearly completely installed in the museum."

I strongly disagree that remarkable players aren't here right now and plenty more coming up.

I'm sure there are many remarkable players here right now... but if they aren't playing startling new sounds, it's still just a museum.

What new jazz movement is currently happening that can be seen as moving jazz forward instead of just regurgitating old forms with more impressive chops? I mean, what is going on today that is different in the way Bird and Dizzy was different when they started playing be-bop in the 40's... or different the way Ornette was different when he started playing free... or different the way Miles or Mahavishnu were when they began playing fusion?

I'm sorry, but as remarkable as it may be, Wynton playing tribute to Louis isn't a startling new sound... and jazz is a shark, if it stops moving forward, it dies. It seems to me that the last new jazz movement was in the 80s and it was, for lack of a better word, smooth. Pretty much everything else has been one for of "retro" or another, be it retro-bop or retro-fusion or retro-swing or even retro-free. But what is truly new in jazz lately?

I hope you can show me that I'm wrong here and that there are new sounds out there building a new tradition of jazz. Please educate me what these things might be. If you can, please put a name to this hot new sound that is sweeping the ocean.

Whoa! I never mentioned Wynton that's for damned sure! I'm not talking about retro anything. For the past twenty or so years one of the things that strikes me about jazz is that the "Great Man" theory has pretty much run its course. We can't be waiting around for the "next Bird," the "next Trane" or the "next Ornette." There have been lots of musicians moving in a variety of directions and there is no one "hot new sound." It has been and will likely continue to be a period of consolidation and retrenchment. The stunning variety of traditions and approaches that have been incorporated into jazz in the last couple of decades is - to me - the key to why this period is just as exciting as any in the music's history (even - perhaps - more exciting.) It's about evolution rather than revolution.

Here's a short list off the top of my head of musicians who have been producing some very creative music. Some are young, some have been around awhile. And most of them defy categorization.

Mary Halvorson

Taylor Ho Bynum

Jason Kao Hwang

Cuong Vu

Mark O'Leary

Joe Morris

Carla Kihlstedt

Satoko Fujii

Natsuki Tamura

Rudresh Mahanthappa

Vijay Ayer

Robert Glasper

Paul Rucker

Ravish Momin

Gust Burns

Matt Wilson

Ben Allison

Michael Blake

Steven Bernstein

Josh Roseman

Uri Caine

Steve Coleman

Kevin O'Neil

Nels Cline

Vinny Golia

Mark Feldman

Chris Speed

Jane Ira Bloom

Pandelis Karayorgis

The Reptet

Anat Cohen

Tim Hagans

Gerry Hemingway

Joe McPhee

Adam Lane

Billy Bang

Susie Ibarra

Dave Douglas

Nicole Mitchell

William Parker

Khan Jamal

John Butcher

Peggy Lee

Dylan van der Schyff

Brad Turner

Oliver Lake

Cecil Taylor

Paul Plimley

Bobby Few

Anthony Braxton

Sabir Mateen

Bill Cole

Myra Melford

Mark Dresser

Wally Shoup

Reuben Radding

Matt Maneri

François Houle

Matthew Shipp

Perry Robinson

Steve Swell

Baikida Carroll

Ron Horton

Michael Bisio

Tom Varner

Marc Ribot

Henry Threadgill

Wadada Leo Smith

Joëlle Léandre

Marilyn Crispell

George Lewis

Roscoe Mitchell

Tim Berne

Nils Petter Molvaer

...

EDIT TO ADD:

Daniel Barry (check out Walk All Ways on Origin for an example of music which is accessible yet adventurous)

Thanks for the list. I guess I'm not so much saying we need a 'Great Man' as that we need new things. Be-bop, free, fusion... while these things often came out of one of two "great men", they are styles, not players. Before someone called them "be-bop" or "fusion" or "free", the Birds and McLaughlins and Colemans of jazz were also considered to defy categorization. Who on your list will force the music world to define and categorize what they do that is currently defying categorization?

Also, I must point out that most young people (even those with a great interest in music) will not so much as recognize even a tiny percentage of the names on your list... and it's not just jazz that suffers this dilemma. Those same young people might very well be able to put together a list of alternative rock artists that most of the jazz-heads here would also find hard to recognize even a few names from. The fragmentation of music isn't confined to jazz.

[Guest Bill Barton]

"Jazz may not be dead, but it's smelling funnier by the minute. It's unfortunate, but unless some remarkable players come up with a startling new sound for jazz, it sure looks like "jazz" is very nearly completely installed in the museum."

I strongly disagree that remarkable players aren't here right now and plenty more coming up.

I'm sure there are many remarkable players here right now... but if they aren't playing startling new sounds, it's still just a museum.

What new jazz movement is currently happening that can be seen as moving jazz forward instead of just regurgitating old forms with more impressive chops? I mean, what is going on today that is different in the way Bird and Dizzy was different when they started playing be-bop in the 40's... or different the way Ornette was different when he started playing free... or different the way Miles or Mahavishnu were when they began playing fusion?

I'm sorry, but as remarkable as it may be, Wynton playing tribute to Louis isn't a startling new sound... and jazz is a shark, if it stops moving forward, it dies. It seems to me that the last new jazz movement was in the 80s and it was, for lack of a better word, smooth. Pretty much everything else has been one for of "retro" or another, be it retro-bop or retro-fusion or retro-swing or even retro-free. But what is truly new in jazz lately?

I hope you can show me that I'm wrong here and that there are new sounds out there building a new tradition of jazz. Please educate me what these things might be. If you can, please put a name to this hot new sound that is sweeping the ocean.

Whoa! I never mentioned Wynton that's for damned sure! I'm not talking about retro anything. For the past twenty or so years one of the things that strikes me about jazz is that the "Great Man" theory has pretty much run its course. We can't be waiting around for the "next Bird," the "next Trane" or the "next Ornette." There have been lots of musicians moving in a variety of directions and there is no one "hot new sound." It has been and will likely continue to be a period of consolidation and retrenchment. The stunning variety of traditions and approaches that have been incorporated into jazz in the last couple of decades is - to me - the key to why this period is just as exciting as any in the music's history (even - perhaps - more exciting.) It's about evolution rather than revolution.

Here's a short list off the top of my head of musicians who have been producing some very creative music. Some are young, some have been around awhile. And most of them defy categorization.

Mary Halvorson

Taylor Ho Bynum

Jason Kao Hwang

Cuong Vu

Mark O'Leary

Joe Morris

Carla Kihlstedt

Satoko Fujii

Natsuki Tamura

Rudresh Mahanthappa

Vijay Ayer

Robert Glasper

Paul Rucker

Ravish Momin

Gust Burns

Matt Wilson

Ben Allison

Michael Blake

Steven Bernstein

Josh Roseman

Uri Caine

Steve Coleman

Kevin O'Neil

Nels Cline

Vinny Golia

Mark Feldman

Chris Speed

Jane Ira Bloom

Pandelis Karayorgis

The Reptet

Anat Cohen

Tim Hagans

Gerry Hemingway

Joe McPhee

Adam Lane

Billy Bang

Susie Ibarra

Dave Douglas

Nicole Mitchell

William Parker

Khan Jamal

John Butcher

Peggy Lee

Dylan van der Schyff

Brad Turner

Oliver Lake

Cecil Taylor

Paul Plimley

Bobby Few

Anthony Braxton

Sabir Mateen

Bill Cole

Myra Melford

Mark Dresser

Wally Shoup

Reuben Radding

Matt Maneri

François Houle

Matthew Shipp

Perry Robinson

Steve Swell

Baikida Carroll

Ron Horton

Michael Bisio

Tom Varner

Marc Ribot

Henry Threadgill

Wadada Leo Smith

Joëlle Léandre

Marilyn Crispell

George Lewis

Roscoe Mitchell

Tim Berne

Nils Petter Molvaer

...

EDIT TO ADD:

Daniel Barry (check out Walk All Ways on Origin for an example of music which is accessible yet adventurous)

Thanks for the list. I guess I'm not so much saying we need a 'Great Man' as that we need new things. Be-bop, free, fusion... while these things often came out of one of two "great men", they are styles, not players. Before someone called them "be-bop" or "fusion" or "free", the Birds and McLaughlins and Colemans of jazz were also considered to defy categorization. Who on your list will force the music world to define and categorize what they do that is currently defying categorization?

Also, I must point out that most young people (even those with a great interest in music) will not so much as recognize even a tiny percentage of the names on your list... and it's not just jazz that suffers this dilemma. Those same young people might very well be able to put together a list of alternative rock artists that most of the jazz-heads here would also find hard to recognize even a few names from. The fragmentation of music isn't confined to jazz.

I don't think that any of these musicians will "force" the world to define and/or categorize what they're doing. They do what they do. Let the chips fall where they may. And the very fragmentation you correctly mention as part of today's music world is one of the reasons. Of all the musicians I've talked with over the years there are maybe two tops who actually categorize their own music in any way. The genre or movement names that listeners, critics and the media in general tend to foist on cats are pretty much after-the-fact and (often misguided) attempts to describe the music in a concrete way, to fit it into a neat little pigeonhole.

Out of the folks on my completely off-the-cuff (dare I say improvised?) list there are only two I can think of who have in a way developed anything approaching a "movement" or "genre": Steve Coleman (M Base) and Dave Douglas. Of course, the list also is a purely personal overview and I included only people with whom I feel an affinity and thoroughly enjoy their music. There are obviously other important musicians out there whom I've never heard nor heard of or don't particularly float my boat (John Zorn and Ken Vandermark come to mind in the latter category.)

[A Lark Ascending]

Earlier in the thread there was a nostalgia for a time of a 'shared common culture' - when young (and old!) people shared a common mussic/TV/film experience, contrasted with today's fragmentation.

But isn't that 'common culture' something quite unique to the mid to late 20thC?

Look to the early days of jazz, blues etc and what you have is a vast regionalism. It was the technology of the radio, gramophone, cinema, cheap printing that allowed the emergence of a shared culture, probably starting in the 30s.

And it could be argued that the earlier regionalism had a positive effect, allowing for the local variations in style and approach that mass culture tends to smooth out.

So maybe fragmentation is a good thing - things developing in isolated pockets, then, at a later date, colliding with other isolated pockets to spark something different.

I don't think the shared, corporate, common culture is going away - the technology is to powerful as is the motivation to make vast amounts of money from it. But I do think the technology has also allowed the things flourishing in the shadows to get an audience too, and not necessarily one living in the immediate geographical region.

I actually feel we're moving into some interesting times.

[papsrus]

Earlier in the thread there was a nostalgia for a time of a 'shared common culture' - when young (and old!) people shared a common mussic/TV/film experience, contrasted with today's fragmentation.

But isn't that 'common culture' something quite unique to the mid to late 20thC?

Look to the early days of jazz, blues etc and what you have is a vast regionalism. It was the technology of the radio, gramophone, cinema, cheap printing that allowed the emergence of a shared culture, probably starting in the 30s.

And it could be argued that the earlier regionalism had a positive effect, allowing for the local variations in style and approach that mass culture tends to smooth out.

So maybe fragmentation is a good thing - things developing in isolated pockets, then, at a later date, colliding with other isolated pockets to spark something different.

I don't think the shared, corporate, common culture is going away - the technology is to powerful as is the motivation to make vast amounts of money from it. But I do think the technology has also allowed the things flourishing in the shadows to get an audience too, and not necessarily one living in the immediate geographical region.

I actually feel we're moving into some interesting times.

You know I agree with this. It is the points where these different regional musics collide, as you say, that some of the more fascinating musics emerge. Dave Douglas' Tiny Bell Trio draws upon Eastern European influences. Some of guitarist Brad Shepik's discs as a leader look to the Balkans and Turkish musics for inspiration. Or Peter Epstein's "Esquina" with Portuguese pianist Joao Paulo. Texier's African adventures. The list is long.

And yes, this all demonstrates a strength in the music today, not a fragmentation, in my view. That creative improvised music can adapt itself to and absorb such a broad range of musics is a wonderful thing.

[Guest Bill Barton]

Earlier in the thread there was a nostalgia for a time of a 'shared common culture' - when young (and old!) people shared a common mussic/TV/film experience, contrasted with today's fragmentation.

But isn't that 'common culture' something quite unique to the mid to late 20thC?

Look to the early days of jazz, blues etc and what you have is a vast regionalism. It was the technology of the radio, gramophone, cinema, cheap printing that allowed the emergence of a shared culture, probably starting in the 30s.

And it could be argued that the earlier regionalism had a positive effect, allowing for the local variations in style and approach that mass culture tends to smooth out.

So maybe fragmentation is a good thing - things developing in isolated pockets, then, at a later date, colliding with other isolated pockets to spark something different.

I don't think the shared, corporate, common culture is going away - the technology is to powerful as is the motivation to make vast amounts of money from it. But I do think the technology has also allowed the things flourishing in the shadows to get an audience too, and not necessarily one living in the immediate geographical region.

I actually feel we're moving into some interesting times.

You know I agree with this. It is the points where these different regional musics collide, as you say, that some of the more fascinating musics emerge. Dave Douglas' Tiny Bell Trio draws upon Eastern European influences. Some of guitarist Brad Shepik's discs as a leader look to the Balkans and Turkish musics for inspiration. Or Peter Epstein's "Esquina" with Portuguese pianist Joao Paulo. Texier's African adventures. The list is long.

And yes, this all demonstrates a strength in the music today, not a fragmentation, in my view. That creative improvised music can adapt itself to and absorb such a broad range of musics is a wonderful thing.

Excellent examples! And I tend to think, although I don't have any empirical evidence to back up the assertion, that more young people these days are being affected by this cross-cultural absorption than we give them credit for.

[papsrus]

Earlier in the thread there was a nostalgia for a time of a 'shared common culture' - when young (and old!) people shared a common mussic/TV/film experience, contrasted with today's fragmentation.

But isn't that 'common culture' something quite unique to the mid to late 20thC?

Look to the early days of jazz, blues etc and what you have is a vast regionalism. It was the technology of the radio, gramophone, cinema, cheap printing that allowed the emergence of a shared culture, probably starting in the 30s.

And it could be argued that the earlier regionalism had a positive effect, allowing for the local variations in style and approach that mass culture tends to smooth out.

So maybe fragmentation is a good thing - things developing in isolated pockets, then, at a later date, colliding with other isolated pockets to spark something different.

I don't think the shared, corporate, common culture is going away - the technology is to powerful as is the motivation to make vast amounts of money from it. But I do think the technology has also allowed the things flourishing in the shadows to get an audience too, and not necessarily one living in the immediate geographical region.

I actually feel we're moving into some interesting times.

You know I agree with this. It is the points where these different regional musics collide, as you say, that some of the more fascinating musics emerge. Dave Douglas' Tiny Bell Trio draws upon Eastern European influences. Some of guitarist Brad Shepik's discs as a leader look to the Balkans and Turkish musics for inspiration. Or Peter Epstein's "Esquina" with Portuguese pianist Joao Paulo. Texier's African adventures. The list is long.

And yes, this all demonstrates a strength in the music today, not a fragmentation, in my view. That creative improvised music can adapt itself to and absorb such a broad range of musics is a wonderful thing.

Excellent examples! And I tend to think, although I don't have any empirical evidence to back up the assertion, that more young people these days are being affected by this cross-cultural absorption than we give them credit for.

Yes, no empirical evidence, but don't the jam band scene and the folk revivalist thing that is happening now overlap somewhat with creative improvised music? These two genres are very much in the forefront of youth music today, I think. ...

[crabgrass]

I don't think that any of these musicians will "force" the world to define and/or categorize what they're doing. They do what they do. Let the chips fall where they may. And the very fragmentation you correctly mention as part of today's music world is one of the reasons. Of all the musicians I've talked with over the years there are maybe two tops who actually categorize their own music in any way. The genre or movement names that listeners, critics and the media in general tend to foist on cats are pretty much after-the-fact and (often misguided) attempts to describe the music in a concrete way, to fit it into a neat little pigeonhole.

Out of the folks on my completely off-the-cuff (dare I say improvised?) list there are only two I can think of who have in a way developed anything approaching a "movement" or "genre": Steve Coleman (M Base) and Dave Douglas. Of course, the list also is a purely personal overview and I included only people with whom I feel an affinity and thoroughly enjoy their music. There are obviously other important musicians out there whom I've never heard nor heard of or don't particularly float my boat (John Zorn and Ken Vandermark come to mind in the latter category.)

Thanks for the reply.

When it comes to "categorizing", I'm not referring to the names that people place on it, but to the music itself. When someone improvises on the harmonic structure instead of the melody, it's called "be-bop". if you play using modes instead of chord progressions, it's called "modal". If you play the flatted third, fifth and seventh of an associated major scale it's called the "blues". If a musician is playing that and claiming what he is doing isn't called that, he's wrong. When Dave Douglas is playing in Masada, he's playing (for lack of a better term) yiddish free jazz.

I certainly agree that it's enjoyable when a musician creates something unique and feels no need to call it anything beyond "music", but that doesn't mean that different types of music don't have certain names... nor do I think calling the blues the blues is something foisted on everyone in order to pigeonhole W.C. Handy and Robert Johnson.

I think that part of the reason that music is becoming so fragmented is because, as more different types of music are disseminated more fully, more musicians are able to add more influences and styles to their own music, making it harder and harder to say their music is any one style. I also think this period of fragmentation is exciting for the avid listener of music, but also that it makes it more difficult for any one type of music to appeal to larger audiences.

If there is to be a "next big thing", it will be because a musician creates a new style and other musicians begin to copy it to the point where many musicians are playing that style. I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing... I guess it depends on what chair you are sitting in.