Value of Jazz in the 21st Century

[peteb]

Without wishing to resurrect the occasionally amusing but generally futile Playing by ear vs Reading thread on the Theory & Technique forum, the following is a quote from that thread by dlloyd on jazz:

[quote name='dlloyd' post='480486' date='May 5 2009, 10:52 PM']Jazz used to be fun, it used to be dance music. It became more of an intellectual pursuit during the 1940s/50s when bebop musicians realised there were some neat theoretical tools to add dissonance to dominant chords. That in itself wasn't a bad thing... But when rock and roll appeared and people stopped listening to jazz, lots of people found themselves out of work and it (the first real 'American' artform) got preserved as a university course. One that was largely taught by those who never got bebop in the first place.[/quote]
I think that he has pretty much hit the nail on the head there but obviously many people here still see jazz still as a viable proposition so what do they think?

[rslaing]

[quote name='peteb' post='481316' date='May 6 2009, 06:47 PM']Without wishing to resurrect the occasionally amusing but generally futile Playing by ear vs Reading thread on the Theory & Technique forum, the following is a quote from that thread by dlloyd on jazz:

I think that he has pretty much hit the nail on the head there but obviously many people here still see jazz still as a viable proposition so what do they think?[/quote]

A viable proposition for what? Making money out of it? Attracting an audience? Surviving the future?

I think it depends what type of jazz. Herbie Hancock was on at The Sage in Newcastle/Gateshead recently and he has been the only artist who filled the place completely and sold out in next to no time. And it was all jazz but you couldn't really put a label on it - maybe post fusion with a hint of funk/hiphop and other more modern influences?

I think interest in trad jazz has all but disappeared, but the newer stuff has a decent enough interest level. I haven't seen any Big Bands advertised in the North recently either.

Conversely, the Northern Sinfonia did a concert at The Sage recently that I thought was amazing, but there were more in the orchestra than the audience.

Perhaps the lack of interest in different art forms is down to the MTV factor in recent years. I don't know, I'm an old fart.

In Italy and Asia particularly, Jazz is extremely popular, even amongst non musicians.

[i]"But when rock and roll appeared and people stopped listening to jazz, lots of people found themselves out of work and it (the first real 'American' artform) got preserved as a university course. One that was largely taught by those who never got bebop in the first place."[/i]

I understand the theory here but I don't agree. The main USA music colleges are packed to the rafters with people studying jazz, and Barry Harris continues to have the biggest attendances for his lectures in New York - and [url="http://barryharris.com/"]Barry Harris[/url] certainly "got be-bop"............. he is 80 odd years old now and still performing regularly in the main jazz haunts in New York to packed houses.

His workshop dvd's are brilliant - he puts stuff over in a very simple, non-nerdy/geeky way so often seen from other educators that puts people off the Jazz artform - and if his popularity and pupil level at the workshops is a measure to go by, yes, Jazz has a future, but maybe not in the UK.

Edited May 6, 2009 by rslaing

[risingson]

[quote]But when rock and roll appeared and people stopped listening to jazz[/quote]

That's the biggest mistake of the whole quote. I wouldn't like to think the amounts of bands that have been influenced by jazz, it would hurt my head... somewhere out there Donald Fagan and Walter Becker's ears are respectively burning.

Jazz nowadays has had it's day in the sun IMO, and in it's true form serves little to no purpose nowadays aside from entertainment value, but Jazz wasn't just some fad that can be tossed into the back of the books of musical history. In fact, essentially all popular music nowadays has it's roots in jazz and blues, the value og jazz as a genre and an entity is not something that someone can put a price on. Parker, Miles, Coltrane were the J.S Bach's of the 21st century, they just had the rotten luck of being around during the advent of drug abuse. They were just as important.

Edited May 6, 2009 by liamcapleton

[dlloyd]

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='481377' date='May 6 2009, 08:16 PM']That's the biggest mistake of the whole quote.[/quote]

It's a gross simplification for sure, but the fact is that jazz no longer appealed to the masses. Rock and roll was part of the equation, but obviously wasn't the whole story.

[YouMa]

Jazz and its relatives funk etc are the reason i play bass if i had been into metal or rock more than jazz and funk etc i wouldnt have even bothered picking up the bass,i would have picked 6 string instead,not that i dislike metal or rock.

[risingson]

[quote name='dlloyd' post='481380' date='May 6 2009, 08:25 PM']It's a gross simplification for sure, but the fact is that jazz no longer appealed to the masses. Rock and roll was part of the equation, but obviously wasn't the whole story.[/quote]

To a lot of people it didn't stop appealing, at least not at that stage. Jazz didn't simply stop existing when Rock and Roll came about. Sure, rock became far more popular, but it still had it's place amongst the musos and social elite, and in the forms of Frank Sinatra, for example.

[7string]

I've always found jazz to be a little out of reach. Not from the point of view of understanding it, but from the point of view of wanting to listen to it.

I've listened to many kinds of music, but find jazz a bit 'vanilla' and not the proper vanilla either, the really bland stuff. As in the quote of take by the OP, jazz isn't fun nowadays it's serious. It seems to be in the realm of an enlightened elite instead of embracing a wider audience.

[b]This is just my opinion.[/b]

[dlloyd]

Here's an interesting article on the causes of the decline in jazz.

[url="http://www.jazzwax.com/2008/06/what-killed-jaz.html"]http://www.jazzwax.com/2008/06/what-killed-jaz.html[/url]

[thinman]

Well, even if only one person likes it and listens to it then it still has a value.

Personally I don't get it but I'm glad it's there.

[BottomEndian]

But what does everyone mean by the word "jazz"? It seems to be a pretty wide umbrella these days. The whole genre's pretty nebulous, which I think is greatly to its benefit.

Take someone like Matthew Herbert. When he works with a big band, is he creating jazz purely by virtue of the ensemble's format? Is he a jazz composer when he's [i]not[/i] using his big band? If not, why not?

And take one of the ECM or Rune Grammofon artists like Arve Henriksen or Christian Wallumrød. They use huge amounts of improvisation and "jazz" instrumentation, but they frame the music in more of a non-jazz way, to my ear. It's more like "classical" or "academic" composition.

I'm just spouting off the top of my head here. Not really a fully formed thought. I've heard loads of jazz that did nothing for me at all, but then again I've heard loads of pop, rock, blues, folk, funk, punk, crunk, metal, indie, whatever that did nothing for me at all.

[rslaing]

[quote name='7string' post='481390' date='May 6 2009, 08:43 PM']I've always found jazz to be a little out of reach. Not from the point of view of understanding it, but from the point of view of wanting to listen to it.

I've listened to many kinds of music, but find jazz a bit 'vanilla' and not the proper vanilla either, the really bland stuff. As in the quote of take by the OP, jazz isn't fun nowadays it's serious. It seems to be in the realm of an enlightened elite instead of embracing a wider audience.

[b]This is just my opinion.[/b][/quote]

Yes, there is some really bland stuff around, but I think the type of jazz you are referring is not "real" jazz? We are not talking (for example) of George Benson using his original tremendous jazz talent and then trying to commercialize it.

There really is a huge variation of musical styles that for some reason have been labelled with the title "Jazz".

The type of jazz I listen too mainly is certainly not "vanilla". Or maybe it is ??

[rslaing]

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='481423' date='May 6 2009, 09:25 PM']But what does everyone mean by the word "jazz"? It seems to be a pretty wide umbrella these days. The whole genre's pretty nebulous, which I think is greatly to its benefit.

Take someone like Matthew Herbert. When he works with a big band, is he creating jazz purely by virtue of the ensemble's format? Is he a jazz composer when he's [i]not[/i] using his big band? If not, why not?

And take one of the ECM or Rune Grammofon artists like Arve Henriksen or Christian Wallumrød. They use huge amounts of improvisation and "jazz" instrumentation, but they frame the music in more of a non-jazz way, to my ear. It's more like "classical" or "academic" composition.

I'm just spouting off the top of my head here. Not really a fully formed thought. I've heard loads of jazz that did nothing for me at all, but then again I've heard loads of pop, rock, blues, folk, funk, punk, crunk, metal, indie, whatever that did nothing for me at all.[/quote]

Great post. To answer your first question, this isn't a bad piece [url="http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=15802"]http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=15802[/url]

[OutToPlayJazz]

The term 'jazz' does cover a lot of areas these days, but I'd say that it's become a niche in it's own right - Yes, 'Swing' comes and goes in and out of fashion, but the more technical stuff is now really music for musicians. I love instrumental jazz & I could listen to a lot of this stuff all day long, as it makes my brain analyise it as it goes along, but my partner thinks my music is "lift music." Obviously she has no taste, but you can see that the more technical stuff I'd be listening to is only really interesting to me as a musician.

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='rslaing' post='481447' date='May 6 2009, 09:42 PM']Great post. To answer your first question, this isn't a bad piece [url="http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=15802"]http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=15802[/url][/quote]
Interesting stuff. Thanks.

[quote name='OutToPlayJazz' post='481451' date='May 6 2009, 09:48 PM']Yes, 'Swing' comes and goes in and out of fashion, but the more technical stuff is now really music for musicians. I love instrumental jazz & I could listen to a lot of this stuff all day long, as it makes my brain analyise it as it goes along, but my partner thinks my music is "lift music." Obviously she has no taste, but you can see that the more technical stuff I'd be listening to is only really interesting to me as a musician.[/quote]
I would usually be inclined to agree that technical jazz is music for musicians, but I did [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=47339"]wonder the same recently about Frank Zappa[/url], and it seems there are a fair few non-musician Zappa fans out there. Music that musicians think of as "technical" seems to quite often have an appeal that reaches far further than we might imagine. After all, Meshuggah often headline at metal festivals, and they're [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A_tSyJBsRQ"]pretty damn technical[/url]!

[thisnameistaken]

It seems to me that most forms of music from the mid- 20th century are dead now - why should Jazz be any different? It's still there to borrow from and inform though, like all those other dead styles of music, which is great.

What more is there to say, really?

[LukeFRC]

see i disagree with thisnameistaken.
I don't like the postmodern idea that everything is just a style to be borrowed.

Jazz was a product of its time. The times changed and so did the music. At some point the 'time' died and although the style lived on the ideas that formed that are gone.
Same with the organ music of the 20th century,
same with big band stuff,
same with punk
and (classic type) rock
and prog.

now when people use the ideas to create something about today, that communicates more thn challenging the edges of the style, thats when it becomes relevant. There probalby are folk making stuff that would be classed loosely as jazz who are doing that.

Same thing happens in visual art, which is my field. People making art about art for people who make art.
Utterly pointless, given the platform and training to say anything, or make any comment about themselves, society, the world, religion, death, sex, love or anything anyone has ever experienced they choose to make something about a clever concept about a theory which is based in the art0historical understanding of a movement of german abstract expressionists in bern from jan 1954- april 1955.

life is too short.

Likewise what exactly is the yellowjackets piece above 'about'? I'm sure we could justify its worth technically but what does it say?

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='LukeFRC' post='481530' date='May 6 2009, 11:46 PM']Same thing happens in visual art, which is my field. People making art about art for people who make art.[/quote]

I suppose it's because the more abstract art movements are so famously rebellious and resulted in so much internalised backslapping. Everybody seeks the admiration of their peers in some way.

It's a difficult line to walk though, if you're trying to satisfy both your own artistic bent and the tastes of the average consumer. Which, incidentally, I don't think is a bad angle to shoot for. I can imagine a lot of you would disagree.

I don't think taking reference from historical music is necessarily a bad thing, and I don't see how you could avoid it without avoiding your medium altogether. Aping it is a different story.

Edited May 6, 2009 by thisnameistaken

[maxrossell]

What exactly is jazz?

I only ask because I know sod-all about it, and I suspect that I listen to a few acts that could be considered jazz.

Like, hard rock: "A driving, energetic style of rock n' roll music usually in 4/4, with a mid-tempo feel and based around loud, distorted electric guitars and basic, aggressively-played drum beats. The main exponents of hard rock include bands such as AC/DC, Van Halen and Guns N' Roses."

Can someone throw together something like that which would broadly sum up how to recognise Jazz?

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='481635' date='May 7 2009, 09:24 AM']What exactly is jazz?[/quote]
Wikipedia is your friend: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz#Definition"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz#Definition[/url]

As is rslaing:
[quote name='rslaing' post='481447' date='May 6 2009, 09:42 PM']...this isn't a bad piece [url="http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=15802"]http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=15802[/url][/quote]
Oh no, hold on. Just remembered the other thread. He's your mortal enemy!

[clauster]

As a commerially profitable venture, Jazz may not be top-of-the-heap at the mo, but here in Tunbridge Wells we have more venues where you can regularly go to a jazz gig than you can for rock.

[waynepunkdude]

We need something cheap to put into lifts

*runs*

[maxrossell]

[quote name='clauster' post='481647' date='May 7 2009, 09:39 AM']As a commerially profitable venture, Jazz may not be top-of-the-heap at the mo, but here in Tunbridge Wells we have more venues where you can regularly go to a jazz gig than you can for rock.[/quote]

Cool about the Jazz thing, not so cool about the rock thing.

Here in Preston there are more venues you can go to to hear some jumped-up douchebag in a neon vest and a wigger baseball cap play his glorified mobile ringtones for fad-hungry w***ers than there are venues you can go to to hear someone play something they actually wrote themselves on any kind of instrument.

I don't think live original rock music can currently be described as a profitable venture, either.

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='waynepunkdude' post='481653' date='May 7 2009, 09:44 AM']We need something cheap to put into lifts

*runs*[/quote]
*watches in amazement as OutToPlayJazz uses a Status Graphite as a boomerang, felling the retreating waynepunkdude in one shot*

[Earbrass]

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='481377' date='May 6 2009, 08:16 PM']Jazz .... serves little to no purpose nowadays aside from entertainment value[/quote]

unlike the pap that passes for rock these days, which is of course, saving the world.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='481635' date='May 7 2009, 09:24 AM']Can someone throw together something like that which would broadly sum up how to recognise Jazz?[/quote]

This reminds me of an interview with Louis Armstrong from the 60's. He was asked what he'd be doing if he was a young man now. He replied "I guess I'd be playing guitar like that cat Hendrix". The interviewer, surprised, asked "Do you call that jazz?", to which he replied "Hell, man, if that ain't jazz, what is?".

Edited May 7, 2009 by Earbrass

[spinynorman]

[quote name='Earbrass' post='481677' date='May 7 2009, 10:13 AM']unlike the pap that passes for rock these days, which is of course, saving the world.



This reminds me of an interview with Louis Armstrong from the 60's. He was asked what he'd be doing if he was a young man now. He replied "I guess I'd be playing guitar like that cat Hendrix". The interviewer, surprised, asked "Do you call that jazz?", to which he replied "Hell, man, if that ain't jazz, what is?".[/quote]

And a large number of Hendrix's contemporaries in rock were ex-jazz players anyway. Dick Heckstall-Smith's autobiography [url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blowing-Blues-Personal-History-British/dp/1904555047/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241689011&sr=8-1"]"Blowing the British Blues"[/url] is interesting on the 60s migration of young musicians from jazz to R&B, and the problems that caused for jazz.