Should jazz be allowed to die?

[Benjamin Strange]

I was wandering around the Filmore neighborhood today, and there where signs all over the place heralding the "Filmore Jazz Presevation District". Also, in New Orleans a place exists called the Preservation Hall, which hosts the Preservation Hall Jazz band. I've heard many musicians talking about the "need" to preserve and continue the legacy of jazz... but why?

Don't get me wrong - I LOVE jazz. What bothers me is this notion that a particular art form should be preserved and fought for. It seems that if jazz were to remain vital, it should be allowed to change and grow and gain new audiences and new respect that way, not by stubbornly clinging to old notions of what jazz "should be". True - jazz is becoming less and less popular, but who's to blame for this? It seems to me that if jazz didn't get stuck in this ridiculous notion that it's a higher art form than most music, and alienated much of the youth, then it would have a much stronger audience. Why should we fight to preserve an art form that should naturally be allowed to change, and to grow or die as all art forms inevitably do?

Wynton Marsalis has talked at length about the preservation of jazz... yet this is the same guy who stubbornly refuses to expand on what jazz is capable of. He decried his own brother for playing with Sting. Sting! There are small factions of younger jazz musicians who are doing amazing things with electronics, turntables, and more groove oriented material, yet the jazz community at large ignores their work. Why? Because it's new and different and scary. Yet the most influential jazz musicians such as Miles Davis, John Coltrane, and the like have pushed all kinds of boundaries in their day - and they are worshipped as gods. Has the jazz audience become so stuffy that they can no longer stomach change?

[baalroo]

pretty much, the "point" of good jazz has always seemed to me to be to push the limits and play with the concepts of musicality. otoh, jazz now seems mostly concerned with tradition and genres.

lame

A lot of the stuff called "experimental" now is more jazz than jazz

[bongomania]

Old guard clinging to established ways from a magical time past has been the case for many years.

OTOH a huge majority of the electronic, turntable, Sting hybrid music I've heard -and I've heard a lot- is crap. Watered-down easy listening- even the turntablism and electronica is just formulaic background music. Yes, there are exceptions, and I thank Bob and Beelzebub for those exceptions. But given that most old-guard jazz turtles won't have ever heard these exceptions they can "safely" say that there is no musical depth, knowledge, or soul in the "new jazz" because (IMO) the majority of the time they'd be right.

[bassrique]

Aside from old buildings, is jazz really dying more now than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago? What metrics are you using?

And jazz is a higher art form than much of the ---- that one can listen to.

[lunarpollen]

A lot of "authorities" like to talk out of their arses about higher notions of things.

But what it really boils down to is that no old art or craft should ever be allowed to die or be forgotten. Especially in this day and age. Things are constantly being changed, replaced by newer, cheaper, and/or trendier versions. Not necessarily for the better. And once the knowledge of a particular art or craft is gone, there's no one left who can be a true authority on what makes it work, nobody left who can authentically create new works or repair old works using that style or method.

Just because styles change doesn't mean they change for the better. Look at the aesthetics of automobiles, for instance. When you see a 1949 Cadillac on the road, it's a thing of timeless beauty. One can't really say the same thing about a 1978 Nova or a 1990 Camry. No one will be looking back at those cars in 2030 and saying "wow, whatever happened to cars like those, cars with style?!"

Music should be preserved just so that it never disappears from history. The preservation of classic musical syles does NOT preclude the evolution of new styles. There is plenty of room for all types of music, past and future. How many people have honestly heard what a big band playing authentic 1936-era jazz arrangements on period-correct instruments sounds like? I don't mean from old discs or cylinders, I mean for real. Not too many, at least not the way it sounded to those who actually were there in the 1930's dancing in the crowd while such a band played for their pleasure. Thankfully there are still a handful of bands doing authentic older music such as that, so anyone CAN hear what it really sounded like and not some watered-down or distorted revisionist version.

Change is good; no one is trying to prevent change or to stifle evolution. What ISN'T good is the callous disposal of old forms, the revisionism or distortion of how things actually were, and the disappearance of classic art forms from living memory. Music and other forms of art don't take up land and prevent new ones from developing. There's no reason to get rid of what's good just because it's old and new forms have developed from it. Some of those old, almost-lost forms of art and craft are vastly superior to many of the forms that developed after those old forms went out of fashion. Human taste is fickle and usually illogical.

[SteveC]

I can't totally disagree with you, and there are extremists in all areas - music, politics, etc. I think all music needs to change, grow, adapt, etc., but there's nothing wrong with preserving the roots. It is America's (by way of slavery) only indigenous art form.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Jazz kind of reminds me of John McCain--crippled, old, and trying to stay relevant in an age that has passed it by.

[Honk'n_down-low]

It may or may not be experiencing a Lull in popularity - but I don't think it will die. It may diminish some - but it will come roaring back in my opinion.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by SteveC

I can't totally disagree with you, and there are extremists in all areas - music, politics, etc. I think all music needs to change, grow, adapt, etc., but there's nothing wrong with preserving the roots. It is America's (by way of slavery) only indigenous art form.

Well, not the only. There's also abstract expressionism.

But I agree with you that jazz deserves to be preserved just like great art and architecture are preserved. But preserving old jazz doesn't preclude creating new jazz, or any other form of music.

[bassrique]

A lot of "authorities" like to talk out of their arses about higher notions of things.

Yes and NO.

For instance, this is a "higher form of art"..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPOBJBKthd8

Than this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbHgMUfbKas

=================

Jazz kind of reminds me of John McCain--crippled, old, and trying to stay relevant in an age that has passed it by.

[Rattman]

Originally Posted by bassrique

Aside from old buildings, is jazz really dying more now than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago? What metrics are you using?

And jazz is a higher art form than much of the ---- that one can listen to.

Ha ha!! I love pointing this out to people when they start using this "counting" verbage in a conversation... So exactly which one was it? Was it 10 years....20 years? or was it 30 years? . . not very precise is it? . .

[bassrique]

Originally Posted by Rattman

Ha ha!! I love pointing this out to people when they start using this "counting" verbage in a conversation... So exactly which one was it? Was it 10 years....20 years? or was it 30 years? . . not very precise is it? . .

Perhaps we agree? Hard to tell on the internet.

Anyway,

Was it 10 years....20 years? or was it 30 years?

That's why I'm asking. Is jazz "dying" any more than it was before, if in fact is was dying before?

It's a complicated subject.

And to approach the OP's question again, I'll say that I don't even know what he means. Buildings and music are not the same thing.

[uethanian]

i think traditional jazz will continue to exist in a small niche, no matter how its popularity waxes or wanes.

that being said, i don't think jazz (or any other music for that matter) should be forcefully kept alive. that's where that self-righteous attitude comes from, because the traditionalists perceive everything as a threat to what they're already struggling to preserve.

its like an art curator getting defensive over the fact that things get dusty. sorry, but dust is here to stay, and dust doesn't care that you're trying to keep things clean. no use getting angry about it.

i also think jazz has wandered very far from its original intent. it started as a colloquial form of music, proudly separate from the formalism of classical practice. now many people have this textbook version of jazz in their heads. these are standards, this is how you solo, this is acceptable and that is not. i think that pretty much flies in the face of original jazz. they did what they did because it sounded good to them. now we have people telling us what sounds good. and it gets to point where the 'preservation of jazz' becomes the 'preservation of convention.'

[Rattman]

Heck guys... jazz isn't dying IMHO.. It may not currently enjoy the status of renown of yesteryear perhaps... but I still run into people all the time who love to listen to jazz... 'traditional' and otherwise.

[Bruce Lindfield]

My local Jazz club has great live Jazz every week and there are many thriving Jazz clubs in London - whether we need to preserve "New Orleans" as the birthplace of Jazz is an arguable point - but it has nothing to do with whether Jazz itself carries on and develops!

Two different things!

[Mark Latimour]

Did jazz move closer to death whan YSL named a perfume "Jazz"?

[KJung]

Originally Posted by baalroo

pretty much, the "point" of good jazz has always seemed to me to be to push the limits and play with the concepts of musicality. otoh, jazz now seems mostly concerned with tradition and genres.

lame

A lot of the stuff called "experimental" now is more jazz than jazz

+1 I have quite a few 'jazz nazi' buddies who are always complaining about not enough jazz gigs around, or that people don't understand it, etc. Then, they finally get a gig, and play lame versions of Real Book tunes from the 40's and 50's.

Jazz as they define it has been dead for a long time. I agree, there are plenty of opportunities to perform true 'experimental' music now, and that's more in the spirit of what 'jazz' (at least from the be-bop and later era) was about anyway.

I don't think Miles would still be performing Solar or whatever every night if he were alive today. He didn't even play that stuff when he WAS alive toward the end. And speaking of Miles, I just picked up that 'Live at the Filmore' disc from the Bitches Brew era. Oh my... talking about keeping things 'moving ahead and fresh'. That's what I'm talking about.

Burning through Take the A Train in the year 2008... not so much

[keb]

Originally Posted by KJung

+1 I have quite a few 'jazz nazi' buddies who are always complaining about not enough jazz gigs around, or that people don't understand it, etc. Then, they finally get a gig, and play lame versions of Real Book tunes from the 40's and 50's.

Exactly. It's like walking into a bar and hearing "Mustang Sally" for the 6 millionth time.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by keb

Exactly. It's like walking into a bar and hearing "Mustang Sally" for the 6 millionth time.

+1 The difference to me is that most of the guys (me included) that still sometime play gigs where Mustang Sally is called kind of roll their eyes about it. Many guys playing those old, moldy jazz standards (which I still enjoy playing by the way) think they are still doing 'high art'

[NickyBass]

Originally Posted by KJung

Many guys playing those old, moldy jazz standards (which I still enjoy playing by the way) think they are still doing 'high art'

I'm not sure if you're into Keith Jarrett, but his trio work with Jack Dejohnette and Gary Peacock expands on the 'standard' format and takes it beyond the next level.

Now, granted, most guys aren't playing to that level, but there is alot that can be done with these moldy oldies. Odds are-if someone doesn't sound good soloing over Autumn Leaves, then they aren't going to sound good on their 'progressive electronic acid balderdash jazz.'

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a supporter of the 'Wynton Marsalis school of thought,' but I do feel that there is alot to be done with 'the tradition' that still can be explored with a forward looking vision.