Modern Jazz is No Fun

[eJake]

For clarification, this thread mentions ‘modern jazz’, which may well mean very different things to many people, so what would you define as ‘modern jazz’? I would image not the MJQ

Modern jazz is going to mean something different to everyone. In this instance I was referring to my observation of many (non trad or big band) jazzers that have all the attitude of guys from the bebop era but little of the creativity. I admit that the term used covers a super wide area. I tried to narrow it in the OP but probably could have done a better job.

I assume I will continue to get flamed over the wide variety of good stuff coming out of different corners of the world. There were soooooo many recommendations in this thread and I have very little will to go check out a ton of new stuff in this genre.

I did listen to a bunch of videos that were posted on this thread and most of them really didn't fit what I had in mind when I posted. Many of the vids were all in the fusion vein. A place that I very much enjoy and am happy that jazz has evolved to.

My post was concerning the other folks who are (gigging) all over the place playing real book tunes ad nauseum.

 

[eJake]

Nice tune!!

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

Why does it have to be fun?
Why is THAT the most important factor?

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

Part of the problem is music schools. They are so steeped in tradition they can't break free from it. The irony is not lost on me. Jazz, as an art form, was literally founded on crushing tradition, burning it, and spreading its ashes far and wide.

I know quite a few graduates of a couple of jazz college programs. But, in essence, I know them all. I used to be the house bass player for an open mic night. Sax players would come in and jam all the time. When they were done, without knowing a thing about them, I would ask "So, how's Roger these days?" At the time, "Roger" was the main sax teacher at a nearby jazz school. And every one of his students sounded exactly the same..... Charlie Parker wannabes with no soul.

Sure, Berkeley and a few other schools may encourage some original ideas. But most jazz schools come to a screeching halt somewhere in the 1950s.

Good post. Jazz was founded by untrained musicians. But now, it is becoming like classical music. Those in Jazz are wanting to adhere to rules established by schools that are always behind time times. That is not limited to music schools. IT schools are still teaching outmoded languages.

 

[ardgedee]

Bill Evans isn’t modern jazz? Really?

For clarification, this thread mentions ‘modern jazz’, which may well mean very different things to many people, so what would you define as ‘modern jazz’? I would image not the MJQ

Bill Evans died almost 40 years ago, the Modern Jazz Quartet folded over 20 years ago. They were modern in their day, but to call them modern now would imply that there's been no change or progress in jazz for over a generation.

 

[Quinn Roberts]

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is

^ It started as dance music folks!

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

Jazz, which was originally spelled jass) was started by Buddy Bolden, a cornetist in the late 19th century. At the time, it was referred to as Ragtime. His style evolved into what we call Dixieland.
During that period, military music was very popular. John Phillip Sousa was the rock star of the day. Black musicians with no formal musical training were attempting to emulate that style, but the black soul came through the music.
Many classically trained musicians of the day playing in symphonies were playing popular music to supplement their income. They picked it up and put their stamp on Jazz. Since they came from a background of formal structure and pulled jazz into that. A good example is Rhapsody in Blue which is classically styled but uses a lot of blues notes and riffs.

 

[Mark Ambler]

Modern jazz is going to mean something different to everyone. In this instance I was referring to my observation of many (non trad or big band) jazzers that have all the attitude of guys from the bebop era but little of the creativity. I admit that the term used covers a super wide area. I tried to narrow it in the OP but probably could have done a better job.

I assume I will continue to get flamed over the wide variety of good stuff coming out of different corners of the world. There were soooooo many recommendations in this thread and I have very little will to go check out a ton of new stuff in this genre.

I did listen to a bunch of videos that were posted on this thread and most of them really didn't fit what I had in mind when I posted. Many of the vids were all in the fusion vein. A place that I very much enjoy and am happy that jazz has evolved to.

My post was concerning the other folks who are (gigging) all over the place playing real book tunes ad nauseum.

The Real book is a useful resource, undoubtedly, but rather than memorise tunes, many people are relying on Real books, which is not good, imo. A few charts, fine, but imo, if you want to be a working Jazz musician you should have a decent repertoire of standards and jazz tunes memorised.

 

[eJake]

Jazz, which was originally spelled jass) was started by Buddy Bolden, a cornetist in the late 19th century. At the time, it was referred to as Ragtime. His style evolved into what we call Dixieland.

Though I very much appreciate your post there are common misconceptions here. I will try to do this briefly and cite my source at the end.

Jazz was not started by Bolden (not a dig on you Gravedigger, I promise you this is widespreak "knowledge"). Jazz was a product of two cultures coming together. In the 18th century, opera and balls were HUGE in New Orleans. This lead to an influx of classically trained musicians from Europe moving there. On the other side of town, Congo Square existed as a marketplace where African (by way of the caribbean) slaves were allowed to be themselves after church on Sunday. This was very different from the British Puritan rule all across the eastern seaboard that absolutely destroyed African culture. In New Orleans (unlike anywhere else in the US at that time) there were free people of color, some were musicians.

In summary, the mixture of the amazing composition skills of the folks classically trained with the natural improvisation skills of the folks of African music culture, and as GDav said, military parades, birthed what we know as Jazz.

My source is a class that I took with Connie Atkinson at University of New Orleans a couple years ago. Here is a link to here page at UNO:
Link Removed

Her main point of the class was that many of the facts surrounding New Orleans history in general have been greatly muddled by old fiction. She claimed that much of the history here was wiped out because it was in different languages (French and Spanish). History acts like it was some kind of magic miracle that birthed jass. This is inherently racist. White people could not comprehend that black people were good at things.

I in no way claim to represent New Orleans history. I am just a student repeating something I was taught.

 

[eJake]

The Real book is a useful resource, undoubtedly, but rather than memorise tunes, many people are relying on Real books, which is not good, imo. A few charts, fine, but imo, if you want to be a working Jazz musician you should have a decent repertoire of standards and jazz tunes memorised.

My "break" is long over but one more response lol.

My problem with the real book is that people believe that those are the changes to be played and it makes it boring memorized OR read. I do not claim to be a real jazzer but isn't the idea that the changes are actually overarching and the ear leads the actual song?

 

[Nevada Pete]

I think some of it is that we sometimes equate education with emotional depth. They aren't mutually inclusive.
Just because someone understands music on an analytical level doesn't mean they have the understanding to convey any appreciable emotion to other people.
Or that those same emotions don't exist in the musician playing the tune.
In fact, given that a musician doesn't have the same opportunities for wealth and stability as other vocations (in a generally accepted sense), I personally have to believe that anyone that would dedicate the time or money required to move through academia is motivated primarily by love of the craft. Maybe so, maybe not.
But, in some very real and practical ways, the people doing these programs are some of the same people that help guarantee that music created by humans remains a choice for everyone else. And whatever motivation they have done that choice, it has some value for society.
Not every scientist is an Einstein.
Not every sax player is a Coltrane.
Both may have been extremely gifted,
But maybe terrible instructors.
Who knows

I got a whole lot out of the music classes I took in college. I loved it and it made me a way better player. Because of it I understand the language of music, and can communicate with other musicians. All good. It just didn't make me a great, world class musician. I always did okay. Maybe better than okay. But I don't think anything could do that.

 

[ClusterFlux]

My post was concerning the other folks who are (gigging) all over the place playing real book tunes ad nauseum.

Okay... And where are you seeing these gigs? Are you in a city with a vibrant contemporary jazz scene? Are you trying to find clubs with new jazz? And why do you think it was any different 20 years ago?

 

[eJake]

Okay... And where are you seeing these gigs? Are you in a city with a vibrant contemporary jazz scene? Are you trying to find clubs with new jazz? And why do you think it was any different 20 years ago?

I lived in Chicago for 22 years. I have been to most of.the standard jazz clubs and some of the fringe ones like constellation and the hungry brain..

I don't know if it was different 20 years ago, I was in my teens not listening to jazz.

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

Though I very much appreciate your post there are common misconceptions here. I will try to do this briefly and cite my source at the end.

Jazz was not started by Bolden (not a dig on you Gravedigger, I promise you this is widespreak "knowledge"). Jazz was a product of two cultures coming together. In the 18th century, opera and balls were HUGE in New Orleans. This lead to an influx of classically trained musicians from Europe moving there. On the other side of town, Congo Square existed as a marketplace where African (by way of the caribbean) slaves were allowed to be themselves after church on Sunday. This was very different from the British Puritan rule all across the eastern seaboard that absolutely destroyed African culture. In New Orleans (unlike anywhere else in the US at that time) there were free people of color, some were musicians.

In summary, the mixture of the amazing composition skills of the folks classically trained with the natural improvisation skills of the folks of African music culture, and as GDav said, military parades, birthed what we know as Jazz.

My source is a class that I took with Connie Atkinson at University of New Orleans a couple years ago. Here is a link to here page at UNO:
Link Removed

Her main point of the class was that many of the facts surrounding New Orleans history in general have been greatly muddled by old fiction. She claimed that much of the history here was wiped out because it was in different languages (French and Spanish). History acts like it was some kind of magic miracle that birthed jass. This is inherently racist. White people could not comprehend that black people were good at things.

I in no way claim to represent New Orleans history. I am just a student repeating something I was taught.

I don't think your professor has it right and I certainly don't understand the "racist" comment. There were classically trained musicians, but as you said, they were on the other end of town and at that point in history, they didn't mix. In New Orleans it was illegal for white and black musicians to play in public together until some time in the late 50s or early 60s. The black musicians had no access to formal training and their instruments usually came from pawn shops or those cast off from the white musicians. I'm thinking your professor's position comes from an activist PC prospective.

No disrespect to you or your professor, but it goes against everything I've learned. Much of it coming from my father who was a music major who studied to be a symphony conductor. He was also a big fan of Dixieland which came from those beginnings.

 

[jblock]

Folks were saying the same thing back in the 70s, 80s and 90s! I studied in college with Max Roach and Archie Shepp in the 80s and you could never make them happy no matter what you played.

 

[turf3]

I don't think your professor has it right and I certainly don't understand the "racist" comment. There were classically trained musicians, but as you said, they were on the other end of town and at that point in history, they didn't mix. In New Orleans it was illegal for white and black musicians to play in public together until some time in the late 50s or early 60s. The black musicians had no access to formal training and their instruments usually came from pawn shops or those cast off from the white musicians. I'm thinking your professor's position comes from an activist PC prospective.

No disrespect to you or your professor, but it goes against everything I've learned. Much of it coming from my father who was a music major who studied to be a symphony conductor. He was also a big fan of Dixieland which came from those beginnings.

In New Orleans there was an active black middle class. Many of them were "Creoles of color" who had French ancestors. (While the white ruling class categorized them all as black ("Negro" or "colored" in the terminology of the day), Creoles-of-color considered themselves distinct from those who did not have that French culture. Sidney Bechet, for example, considered himself a Frenchman to some extent, as did Jelly Roll Morton.) Members of the black middle class had their children instructed in European music. Those children then encountered the lower-social-class musicians who were playing with minimal formal training. There were a very few white musicians who crossed the color line, but the two cultures that were in collision were the black middle class and the black underclass.

This means you have to consider the individual musician. For example,

Bechet's father was a tailor; Jelly Roll Morton's a bricklayer who took occasional contracting jobs. When boys, they would have been considered "middle class". Louis Armstrong, by contrast, grew up in terrible poverty. But make no mistake - Louis was not a "feral" musician - he could sightread expertly and he knew music theory.

 

[Wasnex]

The Real book is a useful resource, undoubtedly, but rather than memorise tunes, many people are relying on Real books, which is not good, imo. A few charts, fine, but imo, if you want to be a working Jazz musician you should have a decent repertoire of standards and jazz tunes memorised.

This is exactly why I don't consider myself an authentic jazz musician. I played out of the Real Book for decades and I have some of the simpler changes memorized by ear. But I don't believe I have the natural aptitude necessary to memorize the more complex changes. But memorizing all of those tunes wasn't necessary in my job.

My strength was my versatility across styles rather than my ability to excel in any one style. I was expected to sing and play in commercial cover bands, bow the string bass in concert band, and thump out parts in big band.

Playing tunes out of the Real Book was primarily done as back ground music rather than feature entertainment, so I needed to the ability to read the parts and solo over the changes. It would have been nice if I had the tunes memorized, but it was generally unnecessary. Early in my career it was fairly common for musicians to know most of the common tunes, but by the time I retired it was very rare. Almost everyone I worked with was generalist like me, instead of a jazz specialist.

Now there were times when I had up to 6 hours of pop music memorized to include the bass part and my background vocal line. But I think that requires a lot less sophistication than memorizing all the great tunes in the Real Book, especially if the intent is to memorize each song in multiple keys, which is what a hard core jazzer would do.

 

[eJake]

I don't think your professor has it right and I certainly don't understand the "racist" comment. There were classically trained musicians, but as you said, they were on the other end of town and at that point in history, they didn't mix. In New Orleans it was illegal for white and black musicians to play in public together until some time in the late 50s or early 60s. The black musicians had no access to formal training and their instruments usually came from pawn shops or those cast off from the white musicians. I'm thinking your professor's position comes from an activist PC prospective.

No disrespect to you or your professor, but it goes against everything I've learned. Much of it coming from my father who was a music major who studied to be a symphony conductor. He was also a big fan of Dixieland which came from those beginnings.

I am so disappointed in your reply man, I can't even begin to respond.

 

[Wisebass]

Jazz is Jazz!

Not pop!

Wise

 

[Watchootognbout]

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is

Ok.
Maybe it is.
Maybe.
But only after you've done all the work to get there.

Some music forms start out with full intent to be fun.
And for all listening to have fun.
Rock.Punk.Dance music.

But that is not the intent if most Jazz musicians.
No one goes to Julliard or Berkley Music Academy with the primary intent of having fun.
The stage presence of jazz musicians in general is not one that says "Let's all get goofy and have a party"