Jazz in a "state of diffusion"?

[John]

Much of its forward motion is happening on the fringes, and there’s hardly a mainstream sound to speak of.
“Jazz” today encompasses an entire ocean of post-collegiate musical work: highbrow traditionalism, renegade funk, droning free improvisations. Jazz musicians now have to be improvisers deeply trained in the American tradition, with roots in the blues. Beyond that, almost anything goes.
What is jazz today, when the very notion of genre seems to have gone defunct?

Is the article building a straw man, setting up an argument that isn't there?

John R.

[Gerry]

In my last post about Blue Note records, the first of the two news

Much of its forward motion is happening on the fringes, and there’s
hardly a mainstream sound to speak of.
“Jazz” today encompasses an entire ocean of post-collegiate musical
work: highbrow traditionalism, renegade funk, droning free
improvisations. Jazz musicians now have to be improvisers deeply
trained in the American tradition, with roots in the blues. Beyond
that, almost anything goes.

Is this right? Haven't there always been multiple currents in jazz?
Even when bop or whatever was the most-practiced form, there have been
people doing other things.

Certainly that's the case. But now it seems the multiple currents
inside and outside commercial jazz are vastly more diverse. It seems
like everybody has their own "style" or "genre" that isn't easily
classified as "cool", "bop", "hardbop" etc. So many artists seem to be
sitting in some slighty shifted approach unique to themselves. Back in
the day, everybody wasn't doing an Anthony Braxton or Cecil Taylor
"thing". Only they were doing it.

Recently (I do it ever 5-7 years) I got a subscription to downbeat
again. Reading through and spot-listening to these artists I'm even
more convinced that "doing your own thing" is criticially important to
these artists. It use to be, you wanted to be locked in with what all
the "heavyweights" du jour were doing. Doesn't seem to be the case as
much now.

Such places as The Knitting Factory (and many others less identifiable)
have spawned an approach to music/jazz that is vastly more personal.

What is jazz today, when the very notion of genre seems to have gone defunct?

Is the article building a straw man, setting up an argument that isn't there?
John R.

[Tim McNamara]

Post by Gerry
Recently (I do it ever 5-7 years) I got a subscription to downbeat
again. Reading through and spot-listening to these artists I'm even
more convinced that "doing your own thing" is criticially important to
these artists. It use to be, you wanted to be locked in with what all
the "heavyweights" du jour were doing. Doesn't seem to be the case as
much now.
Such places as The Knitting Factory (and many others less
identifiable) have spawned an approach to music/jazz that is vastly
more personal.

Formerly that was where the big steps in jazz happened- bebop, free,
modal, bossa, etc., and then others picked them up and expanded on them.
But the music scene has become pretty decentralized (or YouTube and
Spotify are the centers such as they are, rather than strong live music
scenes). The "mainstream" in jazz seems much less prominent now than
ever before because of that. I suppose there is good and bad to this.

[Gerry]

Post by Tim McNamara

Post by Gerry
Recently (I do it ever 5-7 years) I got a subscription to downbeat
again. Reading through and spot-listening to these artists I'm even
more convinced that "doing your own thing" is criticially important to
these artists. It use to be, you wanted to be locked in with what all
the "heavyweights" du jour were doing. Doesn't seem to be the case as
much now.
Such places as The Knitting Factory (and many others less
identifiable) have spawned an approach to music/jazz that is vastly
more personal.

Formerly that was where the big steps in jazz happened- bebop, free,
modal, bossa, etc., and then others picked them up and expanded on them.
But the music scene has become pretty decentralized (or YouTube and
Spotify are the centers such as they are, rather than strong live music
scenes). The "mainstream" in jazz seems much less prominent now than
ever before because of that. I suppose there is good and bad to this.

I still think of jazz as a music that leverages improvisation as
critical, and so generally assumes a list of standards (historic,
regional, or "what we play at open mic night") with which all
participants are generally familiar. It's an agreed-upon set of
musical assumptions in style and approach; either too few or too many
makes for less opportunity for collective involvement.

This would apply to the styles you mention above with the exception of
the "style" known as free.

The way things seem to be going, the "standard" as a chit of exchange
that binds out-of-towners and players of wide-ranging skills, seems to
have diminished. I can't say whether that is good or bad in the larger
sense. But it does cut down on the general overlap between players.
That's a big sea change.

I'm sure we get something back in the exchange; players with highly
personal styles or significantly novel approaches to composition are
free to develop outside the narrow strictures that any one style, by
definition, imposes.

[Tim McNamara]

Post by Gerry

Post by Tim McNamara

Post by Gerry
Recently (I do it ever 5-7 years) I got a subscription to downbeat
again. Reading through and spot-listening to these artists I'm even
more convinced that "doing your own thing" is criticially important
to these artists. It use to be, you wanted to be locked in with
what all the "heavyweights" du jour were doing. Doesn't seem to be
the case as much now.
Such places as The Knitting Factory (and many others less
identifiable) have spawned an approach to music/jazz that is vastly
more personal.

Formerly that was where the big steps in jazz happened- bebop, free,
modal, bossa, etc., and then others picked them up and expanded on
them. But the music scene has become pretty decentralized (or YouTube
and Spotify are the centers such as they are, rather than strong live
music scenes). The "mainstream" in jazz seems much less prominent
now than ever before because of that. I suppose there is good and
bad to this.

I still think of jazz as a music that leverages improvisation as
critical, and so generally assumes a list of standards (historic,
regional, or "what we play at open mic night") with which all
participants are generally familiar. It's an agreed-upon set of
musical assumptions in style and approach; either too few or too many
makes for less opportunity for collective involvement.

Yes, and allows for publish performnce without rehearsals by skilled
payers- one starts the tune, set the tempo and mood, and the others can
come in as they hear something to play. Given the poor state of jazz
economics, reheasals are too expensive for musicians to do- who's going
to pay them for that time which could be spent doing something else that
might generate revenue since record sales don't and gigs all too often
don't. I have been reading Robyn D. G. Kelley's biography of Monk and
struck by how little things have changed in 70-80 years... including
much of the repertoire.

Post by Gerry
This would apply to the styles you mention above with the exception of
the "style" known as free.
The way things seem to be going, the "standard" as a chit of exchange
that binds out-of-towners and players of wide-ranging skills, seems to
have diminished. I can't say whether that is good or bad in the
larger sense. But it does cut down on the general overlap between
players. That's a big sea change.

Yes, I think that is true. You can't effectively sit in with a band
playing all originals if you don't know the tunes. Standards form a
common currency in that regard. But I also admit that I could go a few
decades without ever hearing "All The Things You Are" as well as a few
other standards. But other people love those tunes, so what the hell do
I know?

Post by Gerry
I'm sure we get something back in the exchange; players with highly
personal styles or significantly novel approaches to composition are
free to develop outside the narrow strictures that any one style, by
definition, imposes.

Gains and losses.

[Tony DeCaprio]

Post by Tim McNamara

Post by Gerry

Post by Tim McNamara

Post by Gerry
Recently (I do it ever 5-7 years) I got a subscription to downbeat
again. Reading through and spot-listening to these artists I'm even
more convinced that "doing your own thing" is criticially important
to these artists. It use to be, you wanted to be locked in with
what all the "heavyweights" du jour were doing. Doesn't seem to be
the case as much now.
Such places as The Knitting Factory (and many others less
identifiable) have spawned an approach to music/jazz that is vastly
more personal.

Formerly that was where the big steps in jazz happened- bebop, free,
modal, bossa, etc., and then others picked them up and expanded on
them. But the music scene has become pretty decentralized (or YouTube
and Spotify are the centers such as they are, rather than strong live
music scenes). The "mainstream" in jazz seems much less prominent
now than ever before because of that. I suppose there is good and
bad to this.

I still think of jazz as a music that leverages improvisation as
critical, and so generally assumes a list of standards (historic,
regional, or "what we play at open mic night") with which all
participants are generally familiar. It's an agreed-upon set of
musical assumptions in style and approach; either too few or too many
makes for less opportunity for collective involvement.

Yes, and allows for publish performnce without rehearsals by skilled
payers- one starts the tune, set the tempo and mood, and the others can
come in as they hear something to play. Given the poor state of jazz
economics, reheasals are too expensive for musicians to do- who's going
to pay them for that time which could be spent doing something else that
might generate revenue since record sales don't and gigs all too often
don't. I have been reading Robyn D. G. Kelley's biography of Monk and
struck by how little things have changed in 70-80 years... including
much of the repertoire.

Post by Gerry
This would apply to the styles you mention above with the exception of
the "style" known as free.
The way things seem to be going, the "standard" as a chit of exchange
that binds out-of-towners and players of wide-ranging skills, seems to
have diminished. I can't say whether that is good or bad in the
larger sense. But it does cut down on the general overlap between
players. That's a big sea change.

Yes, I think that is true. You can't effectively sit in with a band
playing all originals if you don't know the tunes. Standards form a
common currency in that regard. But I also admit that I could go a few
decades without ever hearing "All The Things You Are" as well as a few
other standards. But other people love those tunes, so what the hell do
I know?

Post by Gerry
I'm sure we get something back in the exchange; players with highly
personal styles or significantly novel approaches to composition are
free to develop outside the narrow strictures that any one style, by
definition, imposes.

Gains and losses.

Little more involved than that. Repetoire entertains a parallel to classical repetoire. It's not only about repetoire. It's the playing. There is also a history and a homage that, even if ignored or tossed aside or dubbed as "retro", it can never be denied. If a player chooses to skip all that , and take the route that improvisation is improvisation (often void of swinging)... and so that constitutes Jazz (?), then let him. Some of us play modern by expounding (not necessarily abandoning ) upon the tradition. I like that very much.

So I let myself. Incidentally, there is
a myriad of standards outside of All The Things You Are, just as there is capability of playing that tired tune and invoking ones' personal interpretation ad infinitum. Then there is talking about things and there is playing. Often, when you hear a great player blow on a usually considered "tired" tune, we can forget this coversation ever existed.

[van]

Post by Tony DeCaprio

Post by Tim McNamara

Post by Gerry

Post by Tim McNamara

Post by Gerry
Recently (I do it ever 5-7 years) I got a subscription to downbeat
again. Reading through and spot-listening to these artists I'm even
more convinced that "doing your own thing" is criticially important
to these artists. It use to be, you wanted to be locked in with
what all the "heavyweights" du jour were doing. Doesn't seem to be
the case as much now.
Such places as The Knitting Factory (and many others less
identifiable) have spawned an approach to music/jazz that is vastly
more personal.

Formerly that was where the big steps in jazz happened- bebop, free,
modal, bossa, etc., and then others picked them up and expanded on
them. But the music scene has become pretty decentralized (or YouTube
and Spotify are the centers such as they are, rather than strong live
music scenes). The "mainstream" in jazz seems much less prominent
now than ever before because of that. I suppose there is good and
bad to this.

I still think of jazz as a music that leverages improvisation as
critical, and so generally assumes a list of standards (historic,
regional, or "what we play at open mic night") with which all
participants are generally familiar. It's an agreed-upon set of
musical assumptions in style and approach; either too few or too many
makes for less opportunity for collective involvement.

Yes, and allows for publish performnce without rehearsals by skilled
payers- one starts the tune, set the tempo and mood, and the others can
come in as they hear something to play. Given the poor state of jazz
economics, reheasals are too expensive for musicians to do- who's going
to pay them for that time which could be spent doing something else that
might generate revenue since record sales don't and gigs all too often
don't. I have been reading Robyn D. G. Kelley's biography of Monk and
struck by how little things have changed in 70-80 years... including
much of the repertoire.

Post by Gerry
This would apply to the styles you mention above with the exception of
the "style" known as free.
The way things seem to be going, the "standard" as a chit of exchange
that binds out-of-towners and players of wide-ranging skills, seems to
have diminished. I can't say whether that is good or bad in the
larger sense. But it does cut down on the general overlap between
players. That's a big sea change.

Yes, I think that is true. You can't effectively sit in with a band
playing all originals if you don't know the tunes. Standards form a
common currency in that regard. But I also admit that I could go a few
decades without ever hearing "All The Things You Are" as well as a few
other standards. But other people love those tunes, so what the hell do
I know?

Post by Gerry
I'm sure we get something back in the exchange; players with highly
personal styles or significantly novel approaches to composition are
free to develop outside the narrow strictures that any one style, by
definition, imposes.

Gains and losses.

Little more involved than that. Repetoire entertains a parallel to classical repetoire. It's not only about repetoire. It's the playing. There is also a history and a homage that, even if ignored or tossed aside or dubbed as "retro", it can never be denied. If a player chooses to skip all that , and take the route that improvisation is improvisation (often void of swinging)... and so that constitutes Jazz (?), then let him. Some of us play modern by expounding (not necessarily abandoning ) upon the tradition. I like that very much.
So I let myself. Incidentally, there is
a myriad of standards outside of All The Things You Are, just as there is capability of playing that tired tune and invoking ones' personal interpretation ad infinitum. Then there is talking about things and there is playing. Often, when you hear a great player blow on a usually considered "tired" tune, we can forget this coversation ever existed.

Lee Konitz has been playing ATTYA for 70 years, and he still comes up with new stuff.

[Gerry]

Post by van
Lee Konitz has been playing ATTYA for 70 years, and he still comes up with new stuff.

So true. I'm a big fan of Konitz.

Still, relative to jazz diffusion in the 21st century, "coming up with
new stuff" on an old beat-down standard doesn't necessarily appeal to
some young players as much as coming up with "new stuff" on new
compositions on which to improvise.

Additionally, some standards become tiresome to *hear* other people
play. I have no bone to pick with most (not all) standards, and enjoy
working out my own little inventions and puzzles within them. Of
course then I have to listen to a sax player, pianist and bass player
beat on that same standard for a few choruses each. Not always so
enjoyable. They're not all Lee Konitz.

I believe any young player would be at a *significant* disadvantage not
to work through the standard lit. in the process of finding their own
voice in jazz performance or jazz composition. Stumbling in as a novice
and deciding to re-invent the wheel, when you don't know that there's
already been a wheel invented long ago, and it's vastly better than
that dreamed up by an novice 18 year-olds.

I mean no disrespect for those who want to establish revolutions before
they know what they are revolting against. They can learn more, and
faster, by disassembling the compositions and approaches of many
predecessors before striking out on their own. On the other hand, with
novelty or uniqueness of perspective as the goal, there's no way they
can truly "unlearn" such lessons. Maybe that's what a lot of newer
players are intent on--not becoming the 5th generation of Bird or the
4th Generation of Trane. They want to pursue being the 1st generation
of themselves, unfettered by the obvious stylistic residue.

I think a lot of wholly forgotten practitioners did that in the 70's.
But maybe they had a great and satisfying time, and became exactly the
kind of artist they wanted to be, though with little to audience for
it. I wonder how much audience there will be for the unique "new
genre" instrumentalists burgeoning in obscure bohemain enclaves in NYC.

[MWC]

Post by Gerry
Additionally, some standards become tiresome to *hear* other people
play.

I was born in 1956 and grew up in LA. To this day, I cannot hear Satin Doll without memories of dentist office Muzak and elevators. EZ listening versions of that tune were ubiquitous. I heard the Muzak versions first. It is painful for me to hear it now. Thankfully, there's plenty of the American Songbook that never made it to Muzak (or at least was not playing at the dentist)...

[van]

Post by MWC

Post by Gerry
Additionally, some standards become tiresome to *hear* other people
play.

I was born in 1956 and grew up in LA. To this day, I cannot hear Satin Doll without memories of dentist office Muzak and elevators. EZ listening versions of that tune were ubiquitous. I heard the Muzak versions first. It is painful for me to hear it now. Thankfully, there's plenty of the American Songbook that never made it to Muzak (or at least was not playing at the dentist)...

Iused to work with a pianist who made some bread writing for Muzak. He also went on the road with Chet Baker and Woody Herman, and was on the album "East Meets West " of WH.
Back then, you made a buck wherever you could.

[Gerry]

Post by MWC

Additionally, some standards become tiresome to *hear* other people play.

I was born in 1956 and grew up in LA. To this day, I cannot hear Satin
Doll without memories of dentist office Muzak and elevators. EZ
listening versions of that tune were ubiquitous. I heard the Muzak
versions first. It is painful for me to hear it now. Thankfully,
there's plenty of the American Songbook that never made it to Muzak (or
at least was not playing at the dentist)...

That's the first tune I think of when I think of a tune I don't want to
play or heard played. Just too worn out for me. "A Train" is another,
and "Satin Doll" is yet another. There are more, but those are the
three I find the most tiresome in the canon.

There are then tunes I like or even love, that are so consistently
played poorly or with inaccurate changes. I won't list them. Both
categories are outliers and represent very little of my thinking about
jazz in total.

[RM]

Post by MWC

Post by Gerry
Additionally, some standards become tiresome to *hear* other people
play.

I was born in 1956 and grew up in LA. To this day, I cannot hear Satin Doll without memories of dentist office Muzak and elevators. EZ listening versions of that tune were ubiquitous. I heard the Muzak versions first. It is painful for me to hear it now. Thankfully, there's plenty of the American Songbook that never made it to Muzak (or at least was not playing at the dentist)...

Duke's original chart of SD still sounds awesome to me. Same for Take the A Train. So good - and accessible - they got absorbed into the mainstream.

[Tony DeCaprio]

Post by John

Much of its forward motion is happening on the fringes, and there’s hardly a mainstream sound to speak of.
“Jazz” today encompasses an entire ocean of post-collegiate musical work: highbrow traditionalism, renegade funk, droning free improvisations. Jazz musicians now have to be improvisers deeply trained in the American tradition, with roots in the blues. Beyond that, almost anything goes.
What is jazz today, when the very notion of genre seems to have gone defunct?

Is the article building a straw man, setting up an argument that isn't there?
John R.

Nothing new and far from it. Jazz, as both a word and a genre, has long been basterized. I have no dog in the hunt, because doing so, at minimum, opens up multiple cans of worms. Therefore, it's up to each individual professional, fan, novice, hobbyist, or afficionado to dub and define as he or she pleases.

[Tony DeCaprio]

Post by John

Much of its forward motion is happening on the fringes, and there’s hardly a mainstream sound to speak of.
“Jazz” today encompasses an entire ocean of post-collegiate musical work: highbrow traditionalism, renegade funk, droning free improvisations. Jazz musicians now have to be improvisers deeply trained in the American tradition, with roots in the blues. Beyond that, almost anything goes.
What is jazz today, when the very notion of genre seems to have gone defunct?

Is the article building a straw man, setting up an argument that isn't there?
John R.

Nothing new and far from it. Jazz, as both a word and a genre, has long been bastardized. I have no dog in the hunt, because doing so, at minimum, opens up multiple cans of worms. Therefore, it's up to each individual professional, fan, novice, hobbyist, or afficionado to dub and define as he or she pleases.