3961Re: [RedHotJazz] Re: When did Jazz die?
- Mar 18, 2007My sincere apologies for coming in on the middle of something and misunderstanding. It was getting off the point of discussion, indeed; and I did not mean to be too critical of anyone, just lending a thought to the discussion as a way to "dive in" to things, being new.
I wonder what year the question among march music enthusiasts ("When did March Music die?") first took place? (lol)
"David N. Lewis" <udtv@...> wrote:
My personal feeling is that, while Jazz is not altogether dead, it is
really, really struggling. And of course I'm talking about Jazz as a
whole, not the traditional Jazz we love, as for some reason that has
always adapted to fit the dimensions of the audience that was willing
to support it.
The current museum environment for Jazz, and its commercial, "smooth"
counterpart, seems an uncomfortable fit for the music. The continued
exploration of jazz in the historical context of racial injustice is
likewise serving to kill it. Even from the beginning it appears that
there was a lot of involvement of Italian and Jewish musicians in
Jazz, who had intolerance of their own to bear, but are not getting a
lot of love from jazz "scholars," due to a kind of prejudice that
shuts them (the Jewish and Italian musicians) out of the history.
Jazz was a great social revolution, but it is not about racial
injustice; it is about freedom and different cultures from within the
United States learning to get along.
Albert Ayler, if anything, helped to revive ultra-traditional jazz
within a new framework - his fat, wobbly tone is closer to the sound
of really early jazz musicians than most others of his era. So I
don't think Free Jazz killed Jazz. But we are closing in on about 30
years since there were any significant stylistic developments in
Jazz. Commercially, Wynton Marsalis and the smooth stuff are both in
the toilet from the standpoint of the major record companies, and I'm
surprised that they continue to support it. There have been no "Take
Five"s or "Kind of Blue"s for a long time at this point.
Also, audiences are strangely divided as to what they will go for in
terms of Jazz. I was in contact recently with a New York based group
that has a female singer and plays slightly out, freeform jazz within
a loose framework. They were getting nowhere fast trying to pitch
their album, and I suggested that they try some other labels more
oriented towards avant-garde classical and improvised music. They
thanked me and wrote "We try to play at jazz gigs, but that's not our
audience - they hate us! We really do much better at the arty Gallery
type shows and with people who like kind of off the wall classical
So at this point, Jazz is not developing forward because cultural
philistines have backed it into a corner. Will it get out? What's the
use of it if the very definition of what "Jazz" is is proscribed by a
few very selfish "experts" who are utilizing its legacy to pursue a
Just my thoughts,
Uncle Dave Lewis
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>