Does Jazz Stink? Part Two.

Over the holiday weekend the internet was a bubbling cauldron of con- versation about the question of whether or no jazz "sucks" (see previous posting). A number of musicians, writers and record people were in and out of the threads and I joined in as well.

Reflecting on the many hundreds of words that were exchanged, a few patterns emerged. Some felt that if there was a problem with jazz today it was the big labels that were to blame and how they pushed marginally relevant jazz product at times, things that had no right to be considered jazz. Others lamented that young jazz artists sometimes put out self-released music before they were ready, and that hurt them and the music; still others blamed the self-releases put out by artists who perhaps really were not worthy of a hearing at any point. Some felt that there was a drop off in quality, some not. There was a sentiment that a pronouncement at this point was not necessarily good for the music as a whole; others noted that such claims had been made in the music since its beginnings. Some agreed completely that the "suck" speech needed to be made, since they felt jazz was at low ebb. There was some talk of charlantry, the need to play changes-based jazz before doing anything else, the importance of playing the blues, or on the other hand, the idea that playing music NOT based on changes was not only a legitimate way of proceeding, but an exacting musical discipline in itself when done right.

I don't think any of the points raised were wrong. It is all a matter of the weight you give any particular point.

It was an interesting experience. Coming away from it I find that whatever may be the case in the world at large jazz musicians remain a passionate and committed lot. Nobody wants to be branded as someone in the lousy camp, of course. Yet some also felt that those that sought to aggrandize themselves at the expense of the music were not always being completely honest with the public or with themselves. I brought up the old cutting contest mentality and how the fears of getting cut traditionally led to a sort of arrogant bluster on the part of musicians. "So-and-so? He ain't doing sh_t!" I do believe that attitude can lead to the sort of "jazz is in trouble" rap that we see alive today. I don't know in today's world if that is really much of a help to one's own position, since things have changed so.

We have been in a major recession for a number of years now. Of course that effects the music scene dramatically and jazz is a part of it. With fewer gigs, fewer opportunities to play the music you hear for a major distributor of music, widespread copyright infringement in the downloading world, you see results in smaller sales figures of new releases of "serious" jazz, and a related drop-off in opportunity for artists. The continued sway of the Trad movement also leads to normative demands that become judgemental absolutes when applied to particular artists. Those artists can be seen as having failed jazz by not following the rules.

Well OK all that having been said I think that both a critical attitude and a meta-critical attitude (that is, looking with clear eyes on any general pronouncement about the music) is as necessarily today as ever. If there are that many more releases in smaller quantities, then gauging the overall health of the music is in part a process of weeding through all the "product" and finding what's good. I do know there is plenty of good jazz out there. If I didn't believe that I would have no purpose in writing this blog. I don't think the music as a whole is in trouble. What it needs most is encouragement, financial and personal support, and a creative environment where musicians are not afraid to transgress normative rules of what they are supposed to be doing. Jazz is great when artists break the rules; it can also be great when they follow the rules. But no amount of intimidation by rule followers is going to be a good amount. Learn the changes, or don't. (And if you play changes-based music be aware that if you do the same old chords and apply the same old scalular patterns to the chords you are probably going to sound generic. I've heard so much of that I will admit.) If you have real talent it will come out--and it DOES need to be systematized. Changes-based soloing is one way, but there are so many other musical-pedogogical areas of concern that can flesh out an artist's vocabulary and expressivity. Harmony can be critical. But melody, rhythm, and a personal SOUND may turn out to be far more important to new generations of artists in the future. Or not. We must encourage the players to have courage. We must support creativity on all fronts. And we must be sure our artists are properly paid for their artistry. All will be well if we act in these ways.

Does Jazz Stink Today? What Are You Listening to?

Hey, Jazz Sucks. In case you didn't know that's a "controversial" statement made by a musician on "his or her" FaceBook wall lately. It's really not a new story but it always sells. "Jazz is dead," somebody who will remain nameless said around 1965. Yet here we are.

How do we decide if one form of music sucks, right now, once and for all? We use the evidence of our senses? Then, what, have we listened to every jazz release in the last few years? Or just some? Or just a few? And which ones?

It's a bit dicey and probably ingenuous to come out and say that the music you make for a living sucks. Everyone sucks that plays it. Except you? Or do you suck too?

I think it's probably a truism to say that the business of playing jazz for a living (or writing about it, for that matter) has increasingly gotten tenuous. It has started to suck. But if I sit down and write up a list of 100 musicians playing jazz right now that I think are excellent, 20 labels that are consistently releasing interesting jazz, ten or twenty regions in the world where there is a good jazz scene in terms of musicians, if I wrote up just those things I know I would think that jazz was very much alive and vibrant. Now if I started eliminating items from this list based on an arbitrary critereon or two--swings in the manner of Horace Silver, plays the blues most of the time, or whatever it might be, I could whittle the list down bit-by-bit until there was . . . nothing, nobody left.

Hodier once claimed that nothing Duke Ellington did after the Blanton-Webster days was any good. How did he get to that? Drew up a list of things he didn't like about later Duke, then used that as his reason why Duke "sucked." It's easy enough to do. Try this (and I've heard it): "nothing significant has been done in electric jazz/fusion since Miles' Bitches Brew." OK now all you have to do is figure out how to negate everything that came after with a list of things you don't like. You can do it. Easily. But that doesn't mean you are right.

But where are we at the end of such an exercise? We are like the bird that flies in circles so fast that it ends up going up its own ___ and disappears. We refer to self-imposed criterea. We ignore what is out there.

I find it mindless to claim that [all manner of] jazz today sucks. If that were true, then shut down all the radio stations that play new music, stop publishing the periodicals, shut down all jazz digital music sites, stop the labels, close the clubs. How ridiculous. Not everybody is great. Not all releases are classics. And that has always been. If the "lay" public thinks you are serious, that in fact no jazz being played today is any good, they will abandon the living form of jazz for good and you will be left to. . . do something else with your life. This sort of statement is an end-game that draws attention to yourself, isn't it?

Jazz is not dead, nor does it sleep. You want I should draw up those lists? Well then how about paying me? Jazz doesn't suck. But it sure sucks trying to be involved with it and also survive. But crying out that jazz is lousy is like deciding to play football only after amputating your legs. Stupid move. Sorry.

What is the Next Big Thing in Jazz?

The music scene changes and at what point do we wake up and say, “things are different?” Probably a few years ago. In strictly musical terms however, the hundreds of jazz releases coming out every month, some produced in quantities of 300 or less, make for an almost impossible task for one person to evaluate. None of us can hear all of them, nor I suppose would we want to. The possibility of missing something seminally important is real, but there is also no real trend if you take everything as your compass. Imagine being here back in 1958, let’s say? Hundreds of jazz releases every month like now, yet looking back, there were really important trends in the music—but those were exemplified in only perhaps 30 albums that year--of the 5,000 give or take--or even less. For the most part certain labels were where you best looked for the breakthroughs. You wouldn’t have expected Jubilee or ABC Paramount to be the ones, and they weren’t.

So many more almost non-label releases today though, so many more players spread out over the world, so decentralized a means to disseminate the music, so many gigs gone, so many teaching, it IS a different world. It’s hard to be totally certain where the “new thing” will come from, if it is coming.

And maybe it will stay where it is for a while, many styles existing side-by-side, nothing and nobody taking over the reigns of control. Perhaps that’s better anyway?

Mingus called jazz a folk music. Really, ALL music is folk music. What does that mean? Lots of contributions from lots of people making a music what it is, not some over-towering genius calling all the shots. Does jazz need its next Wagner? I don’t know if I am sure it does. Of course it’s nice from a marketing standpoint if people can say, “Right. So and so is the next big thing. Buy the person’s music and make money for us.” Is that a good thing? It is for that label. For the music? I don’t know.