[78-L] The Future of Jazz?

[Steven C. Barr]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kristjan Saag" <saag at telia.com>
> 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.
MAYBE...but they are being grouped based on what they DON'T have! In
other words, varied musical forms are lumped together as "jazz" simply 
because
the original concept of "jazz" was music which was effectively improvised by
its players, as opposed to being played (like classical music and much early
"dance music") according to a written-out "score!" The result is an attempt 
at
coupling (in THEORY!) "dixieland jazz" (both old, as OM5...and modern!)
with free-form "jazz"...two musical genres which are effectively 
UNrelated...?!
> 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.
Agreed! As with the many BAD "blues bands," there is NO guarantee of what
one may hear at a "jazz event"...or how competently it will be played! The
advent of "punk rock" (a genre in which bad playing was intended as a
*political* statement!) offered an unexpected opportunity for incompetent
players to enter the music business...?! And, yes, the three-chord 
simplicity
of "blues music" has enabled innumerable BAD players to get a foothold
in playing...?!

> 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).
The OTHER side of this "coin" is, "HOW MUCH can a form/genre change
before it is no longer whatever it WAS?! "Blues"is at least limited by its
fairly-defined musical forms (all based on I/IV/V7!)...when I see a sign,
"Blues To-night," I know pretty well what to expect...?! OTOH, if the
sign reads "Jazz To-night," I can expect anything from (usually) badly-
played "Dixieland" up to and through form-less "Avant Garde" music...?!
As a result, I am MUCH less likely to be inspired by the latter sign, to
go out and lay out several dollars for libations...?!
>
> 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.
I may be an "old f...ogey" at heart...but when I hear a band play a musical
number, I also expect to hear an identifiable time signature (to which I can
tap my foot...?!), as well as an identifiable/standard "key" in which they 
are
playing! Once "jazz" dispensed with these two musical concepts, it lost ME
as a potential audience member!
>
> 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...?!
> Here, I'm forced to admit you MAY be to some extent correct! However,
this is because there exist several gazillion "blues-wannabe-artists" who, 
like
most rock-wannabe artists, not only desperately WANT to be up there on
stage playing "music"(?!)...they actually believe they are GOOD ENOUGH
to be there! Blues music is, in fact, TOO easy to play...but playing it WELL
is beyond the abilitiies of about 99% of its current players!

True, EVERY idiot who has "mastered" the fingering of I, IV and V7 on
his/her/its guitar can "play" blues; however, being able to make emotional
statements on one's instrument is not only MUCH more difficult...it is
well beyond the capabilities of most of the genre's current participants!

However...current "modern" or "post-modern" "jazz" has lowered the
bounds for its perpetrators! Like almost ALL "abstract" forms of art,
it is VERY easily faked...one could easily replicate a Jackson Pollack
work by pouring paint into a running electric fan aimed at one's
"canvas?!"

Steven C. Barr