OK, I have something I want to talk about.

Over the past five or six years, I’ve noticed a marked change of direction in many young jazz pianists. Please keep in mind that for the purposes of this article, I’m only referring to jazz pianists, but in many ways it includes other instruments as well.

I guess the place for me to begin is to define the word “jazz” – well, I’m not going to tackle that one just yet.

You see, there seems to be a moving away from swing and spontaneous improvisation. I recently spoke with Billy Childs about the issue and he feels, as I do, that it is a musical movement of players leaning towards European elements and not traditional African American elements.

It seems that the feeling of the blues has been diminished and many of these young players in reality sound more like classical players. In listening to various solo piano performances, this is quite apparent.

Now don’t get me wrong, I LOVE classical music. But when it comes to jazz, it seems to me that somewhere in a performance one needs to acknowledge its’ heritage either directly or indirectly.

Now jazz at its’ core is a brothel music, it was born in the whore houses of New Orleans. The music was upbeat, fun, danceable and at the same time technically challenging, but most importantly it was born of a free spirit!

Now this is important, because many young jazz pianists sound like they have rehearsed everything down to the last sixteenth note. And even if they haven’t, it feels that way. Most of the playing I’ve heard is virtually mistake free.

But something is missing! I have to look hard to find that free expression of emotion, living on a tight rope, experimenting, trying difficult passages and maybe not totally executing it correctly but making the attempt.

I’ve always felt that Miles Davis’ blown notes were part of his musical canvas. If he played all the notes spot on, would his music have felt the same – I doubt it!

And if that’s true, then perfection must be overrated, at least as far as jazz is concerned.

Yeah I know, I can hear it now – “the pursuit of perfection is a noble quest for any artist.” That’s true - but when technique becomes more important than telling a musical story or surfing the wave of spontaneous thought, then I believe it is a misguided quest.

Technique is and always will be a means to an end and not an end in itself! Technique is important in allowing an artist to more easily express ideas, giving flexibility of thought and the freedom to execute more difficult and complex passages. BUT THE TECHNIQUE IS NOT THE MUSIC!

So, it’s a long way to come from playing in an early, raw New Orleans environment to Carnegie Hall - and jazz being recognized in that way is a great achievement. But back in the day, even at Carnegie Hall, the players did not forget where they came from and were not afraid to keep it real and pay respect to the blues.

Now I’m not saying that this trend towards Europeanism (is that a word?) is necessarily wrong, I’m just making an observation and wondering why?

I realize that trends in jazz will change - that’s the essence of what jazz is, and change and inclusion are what a creative musician uses to create an environment. But why the move away from traditional African American musical values?

Now at times I’ve heard some of these players play the blues, and it’s quite apparent that they don’t have a clue how to do it. The blues is a feeling and attitude. In my playing it is at the core of everything I do, so when young players abandon that, it’s almost like they are abandoning a large part of what I love about jazz.

I guess it’s where I personally would like to see the music go or not go. To move more towards European Classical elements, while a noble endeavor, leaves me feeling that jazz may go the way of Classical music and only be heard in symphony halls or used as elevator music or melodies in pop tracks or only heard and loved by a small group of admirers.

The blues at its’ best (like gospel) is raw and free, and mad technical expertise has little to do with it! On the other hand there is nothing I love more than a beautiful melody played very eloquently, but somewhere that rawness, or as Quincy Jones calls it – those grits (that hot sauce – that bacon grease) - have to make an appearance on the stove.

This year I toured mostly with Stanley Clarke. Every night we ended the show with a blues. The blues is important! Along with its’ counterparts work songs, gospel and spirituals, the blues is what got black people through a horrific time in history.

You know maybe that’s it. Even though I didn’t experience slavery, my mom and dad did, so I had that direct connection to the gut feeling of the blues and its’ musical predecessors – in reality it is a direct connection to the past through a musical tradition. For me, that feeling tells the story and displays the soul of my people.

On the other hand, I don’t believe one necessarily needs to personally experience the American black scenario in order to enjoy, understand or play the blues! One just needs the interest, gift and effort put forth to learn what makes it work. I’ve seen BB King play in Europe to an all white audience and believe me, they eat it up! I’ve also seen white players from Holland play the bottom out of a blues. There is a huge audience for the blues in Europe – now did they experience slavery?

I guess what I’m saying is I’m feeling a historical disconnect between these new crop of young jazz players and their predecessors. Maybe I’m just getting old and beginning to sound like the older musicians I encountered when I was a pup.

But still in the end, it’s up to the individual jazz musician - there just doesn’t seem to be the interest in that type of feeling anymore or they would learn how to play it and include it in their arsenal. Maybe they feel that it is too simplistic or commercial. But to the contrary, that tradition is FAR from commercial, in fact it is the exact opposite.

What makes and made jazz was the combination of African American and European elements. To me the music works best when it contains both. In affect it is integration. When the elements are segregated, neither work as well under the umbrella and definition of Jazz.

So now, what is Jazz?
Stanley Clarke and I had a talk about this. As Stanley sees it, jazz is an undefined term. It was fairly definable early on, but has since become whatever the musician, listener, concert or radio programmer defines it to be.

I personally subscribe to the Duke Ellington philosophy, “It Don’t Mean A Thing If It Ain’t Got That Swing.” As far reaching as Duke’s music was, he loved the blues and understood its’ importance to jazz. Keep in mind that when I say “the blues” I’m not referring to a song form, I’m referring to a long succession of musical feelings and ideas dating back to Africa.

So again, what is Jazz – I know what it ain’t!
I do know that jazz is an attitude that has the blues at its’ core. It is at it’s best mostly spontaneous. That is what separates it from other music. Jazz musicians are spontaneous composers versed in the art of theme and variations, counterpoint wizards, rhythmic voodoo doctors, melodic swans, harmonic oceans, creating what has yet to be created, constantly searching, assimilating and birthing a new music child.

So, in the end whether these young players are really playing jazz based on this definition is debatable. Whether they are good players is undeniable. Whether it matters is also a point for discussion.

Now I’ve been accused many times of not playing jazz and that’s probably true from a narrow traditional standpoint - I’ve been dismissed as a player by many major jazz publications and critics for this very thing. However, compared to these new breed of “classical/jazz” players, I don’t know about that!

Whether I play straight ahead, funk, r&b, latin, pop or gospel – styles are irrelevant - the majority of my music has jazz elements - spontaneous, mostly improvised, and has the blues and gospel at its’ core. On that level, I’m more of a jazz player than many I hear today!

In case you think I’m being too hard on these guys, let me tell you that I’ve heard some incredible young jazz pianists who really know how to play and are doing it, what I feel, is the right way.

And I’m not trying to control jazz, the mere idea is a ridiculous notion. Jazz was born of a free mind and hopefully will remain that way!

And in the end that is my main concern – keeping the freedom in the music!! The real musician needs to be free to create what needs creating.

I could care less what this critic or that critic says, what this publication or that publication says. Though I believe that many want to, they don’t control the music, the musician does!

There are too many non-musicians deciding what musicians should do. In a nutshell that’s what’s wrong with the business! And even worse, these musicians are listening to these folk.

In many ways, I think this is what’s happened to many of these young pianists - they’ve been influenced by non-musicians. Now it’s OK for these business people to offer an opinion, but it seems to me, especially in jazz, that the musician must be given the final right of refusal.

But, as fate would have it, the musician has given up too much power and as result there is too much music being made today that is contrived and totally controlled. The internet has become a great equalizer in this fight.

It’s wonderful to have a medium that cherishes musical freedom. That is what I always loved about jazz and what I don’t want to see lost in its’ evolution.

As I said before, style of music is irrelevant! The important message is the freedom of creativity and thought. Building on what came before and taking that idea to new levels. That’s the only way the music will truly evolve and become an extension of what came before.

Yeah, I know this is a wide open subject with a lot of opinions on all sides. I just thought I would put it out there—what do you think?

http://www.georgeduke.com/corner.html

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Thoughts?


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

theAudience said:

Another reader brought up an interesting point on that site; do you think any of this has to do with all the tools we have at our disposal nowadays --the ability to fix pitch here and there, digitally correct wrong notes, and stuff like that? I think that same reader made the point that he played a guitar piece for a client--and some passages that he considered playing with feeling, the client thought sounded off....



...

paligap said:

I totally agree with regard to true Jazz where IMO there's no place or reason for it.
In an article I read some time ago the writer asked if John Coltrane would retake a tune like Giant Steps just because his horn squeaked at one point.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

theAudience said:

-- was this a Jazz publication? Just curious, because I'm wondering what players see as the the ultimate goal in making music...you're certainly going to work on your chops, but I'm sure you don't want to be precise technicians about it... and does it depend on the type of music you're playing?
when you play, or when you talk with other musicians like Longineau, Do you ever discuss that kind of thing? perfection vs emotion, etc.....



...
[Edited 1/30/07 8:04am]

I find this article thought-provoking and insightful to a degree, however he makes so many points, but delves deeply into few. His thoughts are a bit scattered.....

That having been said, I am at work, hence not enough time to comment on everything I would like to....so I will choose to briefly address the business vs. creativity issue.

"In many ways, I think this is what’s happened to many of these young pianists -they’ve been influenced by non-musicians. Now it’s OK for these business people to offer an opinion, but it seems to me, especially in jazz, that the musician must be given the final right of refusal."

With this I agree wholeheartedly....case in point, my association with TD and what I was capable of contributing. As a business person, there is a fine line between being of value to the business and being a hinderance to the art. One must be cognizant of the fact that they are not a contributor to the talent or the creativity, per se, but to the organization of the musician's business.

Arguably, it can go both ways: when the business people get involved in the artists creativity, or the artist gets involved with the business, it can spell disaster either way. The business people need to have an understanding of music and vice versa, however the boundaries need to remain clear, and the artist needs the freedom and space to do what he needs to express him/herself.

As my Mom says, "know your place"....each contributor ~whether it be the artist or the business person~ should be confident of their forte, their niche, their strengths and aware of what they are bringing to the table. The business person needs to remember that in most successful cases they are where they are because of the artist and to 'serve', not vice versa....(that comment clearly brings up the subject of those loosely termed "musicians" that have actually been created/fabricated and marketed by business people to the consumer strictly as pure money-makers, not as true talent and accomplished artists - that is another whole, different discussion).

"But, as fate would have it, the musician has given up too much power and as result there is too much music being made today that is contrived and totally controlled."

Sad, but true. The business person's involvement in music should not be as controller or as contriver, clearly it should be about organizing and driving a functional administrative structure, if you will.....and giving the musician full control over the art, its evolution, and allowing the space and freedom required to do so.

Once again, so many subjects in this article I would like to talk about, but not enough time....I hope I made some sense.....

Thanks, tA, for sharing the article....

And to pali for your insightful comments.....once jazz gets glossed over it loses its most attractive quality and form at its purest, IMHO.

paligap said:

Therein lies the beauty of Longineu's talent: he is committed to excellence, perfection, and technical precision, all-the-while maintaining his (com)passion, willingness to acknowledge nuances, surrendering himself to his emotions musically, and releasing himself to unique expression that recognizes/accepts going where no one has gone before, as it were....

cubic61052 said:

It was a Jazz based discussion. Can't remember the magazine but that statement stuck with me.


We've had this conversation a number of times.

With the TD thing, it's assumed that you can play the notes.
It's more about conveying the emotion and dynamics of a piece.
Things are rehearsed just enough so that the players understand the composition but not so much as to suck the life out of a live performance.

There have been times when tunes were created on stage.
Then it's about carefully listening and reacting in a complimentary way.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

theAudience said:

Kool....thanks, cubic and tA!

Now that this is coming up, I remember Bassist Alphonso Johnson talking about the fact that when Wayne Shorter or Joe Zawinul gave the Weather Report guys a composition, they'd let 'em see it long enough to get a sense of it, then they'd take the music away--they wanted you to get the basic ideas down, but then move forward from there...

...and then, of course, there's that famous Miles Davis Line, to his band: "I pay you guys to rehearse onstage".....



...
[Edited 1/30/07 11:04am]

I hope you get to hear TD live one day, pali. The dynamic between the musicians and the synergies amongst them are awesome.

cubic61052 said:

Me Too!!! I've heard the Cd, and I'd love to experience the live show!!



...
[Edited 1/30/07 12:03pm]

Referencing your Miles Davis quote: I am reading his autobiography "Miles" right now.....whilst it is not particularly well written (crudely written, to be exact - written quite like he talked!), I am really enjoying it.

As a listener, TD takes a 'natural development' approach, with the audience unaware of whether it is purposeful and practiced, or 'spur of the moment' having no restraints or limits....delightful.

Jazz isn't limited to just one thing, and some jazz achieves the meticulous perfection of classical music (Duke's stuff for example) without losing anything. But perhaps he has a point about the soloists.

Jazz is meant to capture the energy of the moment. A band communicating and working spontaneously. Not just playing the song, but playing a time & place & state of mind.

I think he has a point about mistakes, too. Mistakes are like mutations. Some are bad, but some are good and can lead to the evolution of new music. Playing too perfectly essentially means that you're playing inbounds, and not creating anything truly new.

Any musician who solos has probably experienced that moment where he hits a note he didn't mean to hit, and somehow it works in a way he never would have imagined.

I guess what he means by the classical comparison is playing only what works on paper? That can be very nice, but not really in the spirit of jazz.

Of course, classical musicians used to improvise, too. That's a skill that has largely disappeared for them. As jazz becomes more of an "art music" I guess there's a real chance of it losing it's freedom, too.

NDRU said:

That is true of classical music, if you have studied any of its history. Unfortunately it has taken on a 'rigidity' that most musicians of that genre cannot seem to get past.

Good observations and you have made some great points.....thanks!

The recent trend in jazz innovaton is more Euro-centric. Most American jazz artists are revisiting post-bop style and fusion styles. This is the first time the vanguards are not American musicians, so that's probably Duke is twisting in the wind.


Oh well.....

PFunkjazz said:

Interesting.

What "new" players are examples of this trend?


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

LOVED IT !!!!! thanks T.A. !!!

prettymansson said:

Glad you enjoyed it.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

I always prefer art that contains "mistakes" in it. I like the gritty, experimental quality, not too polished. I'm talking about art, writing, film, painting also... It gives it authenticity and immediacy and breaks down rigid notions of what elements "belong". It shakes things up, so to speak. I also have a preference for an improvisational style of workmanship. To incorporate at least a little bit of spontaneity always brings art to another level, in my opinion, makes it more alive.

heartbeatocean said:

Agreed.....IMHO, that is what separates a musical artist from someone who can simply read music and play and instrument....I play oboe and flute, however do not consider myself an artist...

cubic61052 said:

In my case, too much thought tends to kills the product. It works much better to apply a light, playful hand.

sosgemini said:

My how you've changed.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

just showing my appreciation for this awesome discussion...keep it coming...back to my couch i go.

cubic61052 said:

I think jazz has probably now reached this point - the point where it has a widely acknowledged set of 'masters', from Louis Armstrong to Miles Davis, and these are viewed with such awe as to be 'unsurpassable'. So, what's the next best thing to do? Imitate. This phenomena has always been around - witness all the Charlie Parker disciples in the fifties who aped his every bum-note but couldn't add anything personal to make it worthwhile.

And then there's the interminable modern 'hard-bop' groups and the Coltrane rip-off army. These imo are the jazz equivalent of modern tribute bands playing '50s rock n' roll covers all night. Nothing more.'50s/ '60s jazz being played by people too young to understand the true context of the times that music was created in.

Now, time to get a little 'deep' here -

Musicians listening to each other and improvising in the moment long predates jazz, still thrives in many 'third world' musics, and will hopefully never die, but, as for the 'jazz question' -

In my view, jazz as personified by the 20th century greats is probably more-or-less finished. Its time has passed.The music is now effectively over 100 years old. This makes it essentially a 'classical' music form. There's too much reverence and not enough fun. I really love so much of that music - Duke Ellington, Louis, Bird, Monk and the rest, but this is a music from another time, an era that has long passed. If you're making jazz today, unless you add new elements, it's like people today going around talkin' street-jive like John Shaft and sportin' a 'fro . Too wierd for words, and very unconvincing.

I mean, it's called 'modern jazz', and yet it's origins are, like 60 years ago.

The most creative jazz-related music I've heard in recent years comes from Europe, specifically Scandinavia. There, they've blended the basic jazz improvisation and sensibility with European classical music from all eras, as well as elements of electronica, rock and pop. I care little whether this is 'jazz as we know it', but the best of it is a lot more creative than the very backward-looking, conservative sounds that seem to be all that America has to offer (I'm sure there must be some good stuff in the US underground scenes, but, since the likes of John Zorn and Marc Ribot, I've not heard of much there). I don't love all the Scandinavian stuff by any means, but at least it's trying to move forward.

I suppose a wider reason for the 'decline of jazz', if this is happening, may be related imo to a wider crisis in black American music. For the first time in a century a so, there seems to be no new thang coming out of the black communities. Recorded hip hop and house and its off-shoots are as old now as recorded jazz was (approximately) in the late 1940s! Jazz was, like, around two thirds through its 'classic' era by then. Rhythm and blues, gospel, soul and rock n' roll were all biting its ankles by 1950. A lot of that great music was born out of pain, and seeking to transcend that pain with something better, greater than what was around at the time.

I'm not a black American, and I'm no authority on black America today, and speaking with great respect for all black America has achieved in its history, but maybe (thankfully) there's just less pain around. Are black communities in general a little more affluent and more integrated with the rest of the country than in segregation times? Maybe that 'engine of pain' doesn't get quite the amount of fuel for its fire that it used to get? I see a lot of social problems in the poorer parts of the US today, but there doesn't seem to be the new music coming out that hopes for any kind of improvement or transformation for the future, like, for example, soul was all about - 'A change gon' come' and all that. It seems to be just commercial hip hop and 'R n'B' 'talkin loud and sayin' nothin'.

And to generalise massively, it seems modern black American-originated/ influenced music, historically well-known for its general lack of interest in its own past (as they're too busy diggin' on the future), seems to have temporarally run out of new ideas. It's the 'classically', perhaps more historically-minded (musically-speaking) whites that 'jazz' seems to have appealed most to, since the late '60s I'd say. They have their own opinions of what jazz was/ is, and they generally still hold the purse-strings in the music industry.

So, to conclude, I'm now beginning to think that jazz 'as we knew it' was a 2-3 generational thing, and is now basically 'over'. It's probably been over since about 1970-75, when Hendrix passed, James Brown burnt out (by '75-ish), Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington left us and Miles tested the jazz/ funk/ afro/ Stockhausen hybrid to destruction. Almost everything I've heard since then has been rehashes of old styles.

Maybe Miles was right in the late 1980's when he said, provacatively, 'Jazz is dead; the music of the museum. It should all be under glass.' And maybe it's had the electrodes attached to its chest one too many times for it to pull through?

I wish it weren't true, but where are the new Armstrongs, Ellingtons, Birds etc?
Maybe they're out there, but we're looking in the wrong places. They're probably unknowns, or working in much younger, less 'established' music forms than crumbly ol' jazz. All us old 'uns ain't got the sight to see the future, cos we're too busy lookin' into the past.

I just listen to the good old jazz music and, for new, cutting edge stuff (to me), I put on something groovy or just beautiful from West or North Africa. Maybe jazz has just gone home again.