Do you like today's jazz?

Cafe Society
1

I made a very poor attempt at starting this thread yesterday, and it turned out to be a piece of spam. :smack: What I meant to start was a discussion about the state of jazz today. I came across a thread talking about the great jazz groups of old, and I became curious about what the SDMB members think about current jazz groups.

I’m not talking about Jazz/Fusion/Pop acts. I mean the people out there who are trying to carry on the tradition of jazz, not always easily found in the main stream, as translated into today’s world. And my question doesn’t have to do with age necessarily, but just jazz music being played and recorded these days. (For example Wayne Shorter came on the scene around '59, but his band today is extremely relevant to this discussion)

Some people who come to my mind are Kurt Rosenwinkle, Brad Meldau, Ben Monder, Joshua Redmond, Don Braden, David Leibman, Steve Coleman, and Chris Potter.

What do you think about jazz today?

2

I wouldn’t know it if it jumped me in an alley. The most contemporary album I own is Bitches Brew, and that’s barely jazz, depending on who you ask. My friends who like jazz think Chick Corea is “that weird Scientologist fusion guy” (whilst acknowledging his mad chops), and seek out little else. Modern jazz in the classic style must be a tough row to hoe, financially.

3

I can’t name any current “smooth jazz” guys because 1) I’m unimpressed, and 2) I’m the daughter of an old time jazz musician. I get all my jazz from him. I’m particularly fond of people like John Coltrane, Buddy Rich, Duke Ellington…the new stuff smacks of elevator music to me.

4

I didn’t mean to imply any “smooth jazz” guys. I am also unimpressed by there wankingness. Of course I love the musicians you mentioned as well as Armstrong, Parker, Monk, Biderbeck, Tatum, etc. But have you or your father listened to any of the musicians listed in the post?

5

meant “their wankingness” again :smack:

6

The problem with trying to seperate out the fusion musicians and the jazzers is that these days they are often the same. Take Pat Metheny. Although he is best known as a fusionist his straight ahead jazz albums are among my favourite recordings. Chris Potter is a great jazz saxophonist but his work with Steely Dan is the stuff I listen to most. To my mind there are two “schools” of modern jazz players; those who are progressive, usually delving at least somewhat into the fusion side of things, and those who are regressive, who seem to be be stuck in 1949. Personally I think the former are the real jazz musicians. I also think they tend to be better players, not necessarily technically but in what they say with their music.

7

One mainstream, day-gigging saxophonist 's opinion:

Today’s jazz music is actually very healthy and diverse - the drag is today’s jazz scene. It is too exclusionary of both listeners and players. There is just a limited segment that gets attention, either very commercial or very arty, and too much emphasis put on names rather than on what’s played.

There is tons of great talent and thousands of worthwhile recordings out there (along with a lot of deadheads and schlock). The problem, in North America at least, is that jazz promotion, marketing, education, and community spirit all more or less suck.

8

You are right, seperating “fusion musicians and jazzers” is difficult, they are often simmilar. But I didn’t really mean Metheny opposed to Ornette, as much as Kenny G next to Steve Coleman.

9

I know several people who pay big bucks to play with a “name” player so they can build stature in their relative region. It is ridiculous, but works. I’ve got to take issue, though, with putting down North American education and community spirit.

10

I had gotten stuck in a rut for many years of listening to artists I was already familiar with instead of seeking out who’s breaking new ground. I now subscribe to Jazz Improvisation magazine, which is more intended for musicians than the average listener (I’m an amateur jazz guitarist), but usually includes a sampler CD of newer artists that is very enlightening. The CD review sections are also good hunting grounds for lesser known or emerging artists.

Back to the OP, I’m not sure that you can draw nice neat lines around what is jazz, fusion, pop. And the ones who you say are carrying on the tradition of jazz might be today’s interpreters of traditional jazz, which I would say is different than “today’s jazz.” Unfortunately I am not familiar with the artists you listed so I can’t quite grok where you’re coming from.

I will just add that I am considering marriage counseling because my wife likes Kenny G. :wink:

11

“There are only two kinds of music (pause) good music and bad music”-quote from Ellington. I have little tolerance for seperating music into categories. But the categories seem to be a good way to stimulate musical discussion. If you are a guitarist, try googling Kurt Rosenwinkle, Ben Monder and Rodney Jones. Maybe it will be fun!

I never meant to imply that the mentioned artists are “carrying on the jazz tradition” “interpreters of traditional jazz” or “todays jazz”, just some players on the scene who I think are good! :wink:

12

Well, to begin with, I’d argue that the only people that are truly “modern jazz” - that is, making modern music that came out of the jazz idiom that seems to be true to the spirit and ethos of jazz - are people like John Zorn, Anthony Braxton, the whole Downtown NYC scene (Matthew Shipp, Susie Ibarra, William Parker, David S. Ware, etc.), Ken Vandermark, and likeminded people. And this might be controversial (or might be accepted as a given), but their entire careers (save Zorn) have mostly been predicated on emulating Coleman, Ayler, and other Free Jazz heroes even down to the way that they do their album art and layouts. That’s fine, but a lot of these guys have come dangerously close to “Tribute Band” territory.

I think that John Zorn and his Tzadki label were the best thing going in modern jazz for much of the nineties, and really reached an unparalleled sense of community and creative homogenity - Zorn’s records, which were mostly great, acted as the nucleus around which solo records and compositions from the component members of his groups circulated like electrons. Sadly, that label seems to have collapsed into navel-gazing, with Zorn seeming to strive for inaccessibility and releasing a glut of pointless, uninteresting records.

I thought that Chicago Underground (Duo, Trio, Quartet, Orchestra) throughout the late nineties and early 00’s, were really onto something. Though they’re mostly known as satellite members of Tortoise and that whole Thrill Jockey scene, those records were incredible modern jazz efforts that were listenable as hell while still being challenging and interesting, especially with the incorporation of electronics and electronic processing of some of the natural instruments. That Chicago Underground Quartet record remains one of my favorites in recent memory, and one of my favorite “middle of the night” records.

My main beef with a lot of the modern jazz groups mentioned in the OP is their reliance on novelty; Brad Mehldau’s entire popularity is based around the fact that he did “wacky” Radiohead covers. Ditto for The Bad Plus, who seem to be enjoying a streak of popularity based on jokey post-bop Nirvana songs.

13

So it’s cool to you that jazz education pretty much begins with bebop and is very behind on promotion and professional development? That not enough jazz is being brought into schools, public spaces, etc.? That coops, collectives, and such that work in musicians’ best interests are rare?

14

I can’t say that I recognize any of the names and didn’t mean to imply that those guys are Wanker Jazz Musicians. I must admit I don’t listen as much as I should. We have a great jazz radio station here in Chicago (suburban Chicago actually) and I should tune in more often.

15

Well, no, I’m not cool with it. But I’m curious what you mean by behind? Behind who?

16

I’ve got no kick against modern jazz - unless they try to play it too darn fast and change the beauty of the melody until they sound just like a symphony.

17

I love Wynton Marsalis.

18

David Benoit was, in my opinion, headed in the right direction. He was writing his own stuff and doing some decent improv, but it seems he got sucked into the smooth jazz genre in order to pay his rent. Dave Grusin is another who goes back and forth between Ellington and movie themes.

19

Brad Mehldau’s popularity is based on Radiohead covers? Maybe. But Steve Coleman? Don Braden? Dave Leibman? This is not music based on novelty.

20

A lot of people cringe at the idea of modern jazz, because so much of it is the over produced Kenny G/easy listening type (although I’ve heard some really good soft jazz jams while on hold on the phone before). In the modern era I think that Medeski, Martin, and Wood have some incredibly sublime moments on record and on live tapes, apart from the atonal noise drones that they can also favor. I don’t think that they fit in any other category besides modern jazz.