[78-L] The Future of Jazz?

[Kristjan Saag]

Steven C. Barr wrote:

> The term "jazz" has been expanded to include MANY unrelated forms of 
> music...everything from > commercial "Dixieland," through "New Orleans 
> Revival" (still played in Toronto!?), through "Be-
> Bop" (available on reissue records, at least?!) to "Avant Garde" (free of 
> conventions like using a
> single time signature, or playing in one pre-defined "key"...?!)/ snip/
> The result asks for establishing a musical "dividing line" between a bunch 
> of players (or
> monkeys?!) playing "avant garde" jazz...as opposed to a random bunch of 
> parties playing
> instruments totally at random...?!

--
First: These forms are not unrelated; the very reason why've been grouped 
under the "jazz" label is their very relationship.
Second: The proponents of these related forms of jazz have all claimed that 
their particular jazz is The Real Jazz as compared to the other forms of 
jazz. Which suggests that the very hunt for Real Jazz or Non-Real Jazz is in 
vain.
Third: A concept whose meaning changes over time is a vital concept and 
represents a vital activity. Jazz is never the same, and failing to discover 
new expressions in jazz is, usually, not jazz's fault, but one's own 
(unwillingness or incapability to explore new areas of music).
Fourth: There never was a jazz form characterized by total random playing. 
Free Form meant exactly what it said: Free Form - not Without Form. It was, 
or is, up to the listener to identify the forms, which usually is easier 
when seeing the music played, watching the interaction, than listening to 
recordings.
Fifth: What's the "dividing line" between a bunch of players (or corpses?!) 
playing "blues"...as opposed to a random bunch of parties playing 
instruments totally by heart...?!
Kristjan