The Game Concludes: Did America kill jazz?

The last suspect on our list is none other than the birthplace of jazz. We gave birth to this great American art form and then, a few decades later, developed some sort of Abraham complex and slew it… allegedly. For the prosecution we have Stuart Nicholson, author of the book entitled “Is Jazz Dead? Or has it Moved to a New Address”:

For years Americans have regarded European jazz with the same tolerant smile they reserve for Japanese baseball. But something is stirring in the Old World. A generation of musicians is emerging from Europe's jazz underground, and now they're raising a tolerant smile at the mention of American jazz. Talk to them about the current state of the music, and it's as if an old and dear friend has passed away. They believe American jazz is retreating into the past while Europe is moving the music into the 21st century.

-Stuart Nicholson, 2001

Nicholson essentially goes on to argue that American jazz is no longer innovative. We all share the philosophy of Wynton Marsalis and simply hang onto the traditions of the past as though they were law. The reason 80% of Ken Burns’ documentary on jazz was before WWII is because sometime shortly after that jazz died, along with its innovative nature. Where the European jazz scene once followed America’s lead, they now have completely moved on, while America still lies in the 40s. He presents quotes of European artists like the Norewegian pianist Brugge Wesseltoft as evidence:

“I think American jazz somehow has really stopped, maybe in the late 70’s, early 80’s. I haven’t heard one interesting American record in the last 20 years. It’s like a museum, presenting stuff that’s already been done.”

-Brugge Wesseltoft, 2001

Certainly this evidence is quite damning. It’s really America’s own fault for not creating anything new since 1965. We all blindly follow the lead of Wynton Marsalis, who is obviously the only jazz musician worth mentioning in America today, and that has landed us on this retreat into the past. Nicholson goes on to tell us that if American jazz is to ever have a hope of sticking around, it will have to survive of a protective government subsidy, since there are no audiences to support it anymore. This definitely sounds like we’ve finally closed the case and found our murderer, but before the gavel sounds, there is one counterargument I would like to make.

Stuart Nicholson is an idiot.

Wait one second! There hasn’t been any American contribution to the innovation of jazz for over 20 years? I would like to call the following musicians as witnesses to the contrary:

Ralph Alessi

David Gilmore

Tyshawn Sorey

David Binney

Jason Moran

Gary Thomas

Steve Coleman

Greg Osby

Mark Turner

Dave Douglas

Lonnie Plaxico

Robin Eubanks

Kurt Rosenwinkle

No, Wynton Marsalis is not on that list, but there is a reason his name sparks controversy among American jazz musicians. We don’t all share his philosophy of music. It’s great that Marsalis keeps tradition alive. I mean, it’s always a good thing to remember and appreciate your roots, but his music is far from the rule in America.

That being said, Europe is certainly doing some great things with jazz. They are now at a point where they are no longer imitating American jazz as they did in the past, but have now taken the music in a new direction of their own. This is wonderful, but it doesn’t mean that American jazz is dead. Jazz in America is very much alive. In 1972 there were only 15 universities that offered degrees in jazz studies. That number in America alone is in the hundreds today, stretching from coast to coast. Every year, American schools turn out hundreds of new jazz musicians into the field.

Jazz is not dead. Period. What started in the American south in the late 19^th century has now spread worldwide. Musicians from all over the world can commune with this one common language. Jazz in America has seen more than its share of bad times, but that certainly doesn’t mean that it’s dead. Far from it, in fact. And now, without a victim, we have no case. America is cleared of all charges and free to go listen to some new jazz. Case dismissed.

The Game Continues: It was technology, in the 1970s, with...a candlestick?

For those that believe jazz is dead, they typically cite the 1970s as the time of death. The 70s saw the birth of a cultural revolution, the likes of which had never been seen in the US. This decade saw a number of events which would begin to shape the culture we have today. The 70s was a period marked by the end of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, the Watergate scandal and President Nixon’s subsequent resignation, Steve Jobs introduces the Apple Macintosh PC and suddenly the population finds their obsession with personal technology, and the British Invasion dominates the music scene with groups like Led Zepplin, The Who, Black Sabbath etc, as well as the birth of heavy metal. The 70s also saw the first real use of electronic music and synthesizers, and by 1976, the use of digital recording. The foundation and building blocks for the pop music of today had been laid out, all in a very short time.

In a very short time, we see the popularity of jazz give way to funk, fusion, British rock, and heavy metal. Our world becomes much faster paced, and the evolution of music gets kicked into overdrive. The “quantity over quality” mentality begins to kick in, as the sheer amount of music available grows exponentially as well as the accessibility of music due to the advances in technology. America was quickly sprinting to the digital age.

Still, I’m not convinced that the case against technology for the murder of jazz has been substantiated. Certainly I concede that the 70s brought about vast change, not only in the world of music, but reconstructed our entire culture. Technology has certainly changed the world of music more still since the 70s. Between technological innovations such as Auto-Tune and GarageBand some begin to worry that someday actual musicians will no longer be needed. Pop stars today can almost be manufactured, and after hearing some music today I use the word “almost” very generously. But there was still great jazz being made in spite of this cultural revolution. Even though jazz was being pulled into a plethora of directions, there were still those that held onto more traditional forms of the music which is so deeply intertwined in American heritage. The big bands of Duke Ellington and Count Basie were still very active and continued to play even after these legends died (1974 and 1984 respectively). Free jazz players who had made a name for themselves in the 60s such as Ornette Coleman, Sun Ra and the Art Ensemble of Chicago. The 1970s also brought about the inclusion of jazz into academia. In 1972 only 15 schools in the U.S. offered degrees in jazz studies. This number would increase to 72 in the next 10 years.

All in all, I would say that while the 70s brought about great change in music and in culture, it cannot be appropriately cited as either time or cause of death of jazz. Jazz evolved during this time, and in many ways became something new. This helped shape our culture and lay the groundwork for the music of today. Change doesn’t mean better, and it doesn’t mean worse. Most importantly though, it does not mean “dead”. The case against technology and the 1970s is hereby dismissed.

The Game Continues: did Wynton Marsalis kill jazz?

Wynton Marsalis. Since you’re reading a blog about jazz, I imagine his name will mean something to you. To some, his name rolls off the tongue, dripping like honey with admiration as one of the leading jazz musicians of our day. To others, his name is to be spat out with angry bitterness for how he has tainted their beloved music with his very existence. Whichever of these groups you belong to, you cannot deny that Marsalis has been a driving influence in jazz today, be it for better or worse.

So why is it that Wynton Marsalis now finds himself on the list of suspects in the alleged murder of jazz? He first made a target of himself when he wrote this article in 1988. Marsalis’ greatest sin as an artist is not recognizing the legitimacy of other art and his obsession with a label. It seems what has earned him such disdain is his rigid definition of what jazz is. His faithful clinging to the ways and traditions of the swing era has kept alive the forms of jazz long thought dead, all while claiming his to be the one true jazz.

Now before we take up arms to slay the false prophet in some sort of jazz crusade, let’s do a little evaluating here. There is little question that what Wynton Marsalis plays IS jazz. He has also been extremely successful with it, earning 9 Grammy Awards and one Pulitzer Prize since 1983. This is the point that I think people are angered by the most. Marsalis has essentially ignored every jazz innovation since 1960 (before he was even born) and many still regard him as the single most influential jazz musician living today.

I believe we can put the case of this “jazz heretic” away. Put away your pitchforks and douse your torches, because Wynton Marsalis has been wrongly charged of killing jazz. Go ahead, I’ll wait for you to get back. There, have a seat and calm yourself. I think we get so worked up over this particular trumpet player because he seems to defy the rule. He refuses to let go of the old ways, the beginnings of our art form, and yet he still remains hugely successful in what we know to be a progressive world driven by innovation. If anything, I feel he has done the world of jazz a great service by keeping our roots alive in his music. Yes, perhaps his rigid stance on labels in music is less than infallible but, love him or hate him, history WILL remember him as a great influence in the world of jazz. Yes, music, like all things, will move forward. Sometimes though, we all must be reminded of where we’ve been.

(originally posted on Jazz Heresy)

"Hipsters, flipsters, and finger-poppin' daddies, knock me your lobes."

There exists a devision among our people. Classical musicians look down upon the jazz musicians for their hipster ways and blatant abuse of music theory (which for some has become music law). Jazz musicians look down on the classical musicians as being "classical snobs" who haven't evolved their craft since circa 1800. Pop musicians look down on them both for holding onto traditions older than a few years while they go to spend their millions on Auto-Tune and "Rehab." These are the ideas we seem to hold strongly onto at least.

I once was approached by a professor, who after finding out I was a classical musician, decided to inquire what kinds of music I like. I find this to be the most commonly asked question of me as a musician. I quickly responded with a well ingrained answer that spoke something of the love of composers like Mahler and Wagner, and the loathing pretty much everything else (Britney Spears and 50 Cent come to mind).

She shook her head and walked away. Perplexed, I followed and asked what was wrong with what I had said. "As a musician you really should be more supportive of others of your craft. Not caring for another's music is one thing, but hating it outright and having no appreciation whatsoever for the music or the artist is quite another." I was blown away by this comment. Never before had I ever thought of people like Jessica Simpson and Eminem as colleagues. Performers of pop music had no real talent and where just there to brainwash the masses and leech the money away from "real musicians."

I was rather humbled by this encounter. I found myself actually having an appreciation for music written post 19th century. I'm not claming to actually LIKE everything I hear today. I mean, I still don't see the draw of rap songs like "Fuck Dat Bitch", but I can concede that they have their place. Along the way I've actually found that some of today's music is actually quite good. This is an experience that I never would have enjoyed if I hadn't been able to admit to myself that yes, I was a "classical music snob". Music is not born with a label. The genre is just something we've applied later, but it all falls under the umbrella term of music. It should all, therefore, be given an equall chance. Who knows? You might actually find yourself to be pleasently surprised at what you find.

Who killed Jazz? The Game is Afoot.

Miles Davis killed jazz.

I'll let that simmer for a minute and wait for the hot glares to cool before I continue. Ready to go on? Alright, let me clarify. One person can't really be blamed entirely for the declining in popularity of an entire art form. To be fair, there are a lot of contributing factors over the last few decades. The shift in culture due to the popularity of television, the birth of rock and roll, the sexual revolution, etc... But no stronger argument has been made for the declining popularity of jazz music than the shift away from dance music in the 1940s and 50s which is primarily attributed to Miles Davis and his development of Bop.

Before Miles Davis the primary medium of performance for jazz was as a dance band. Music was relatively simple and had clear meter to make it easy for Johnny and Sally to get there Lindy Hop on between malted milkshakes. Miles Davis brought to the table a new era of complexity and virtuosity to the art form. Modal harmonies, asymmetric meter, bebop, hard bop, all these things come from Miles Davis. Before Davis you had Happy Days are Here Again, and with him you had Bitches Brew. Miles Davis took jazz into a much deeper and darker corner than it had ever been before, and it's there that it seems to have found a home, cramped though it may be. With the shifting away from dance music in the 40s and 50s, Johnny and Sally had to find something to groove to, so the sexual revolution drove them to Rock and Roll and artists that could only be filmed from the waist up because of how "extreme" they were. Jazz had passed the title of Devil's Music onto rock and roll, a crown it would never regain, despite titles like Bitches Brew. Miles Davis had formed jazz into music for musicians. Jazz would soon be studied in conservatories all across the country and eventually the globe. Professors of music would start to apply music theory to jazz and teach technique. Jazz became institutionalized and commonplace. Despite many valiant attempts at rebirth and innovation of the art form, Johnny and Sally already had found music to which they could simulate sex on the dance floor and rebel against their parents. Lucy and Ricky may have slept in separate beds at the time, but dammit, Johnny and Sally needed to express their darkest desires at the school sock hop. Thus jazz went the way of all things...and died.

Or did it? Yes, jazz DID lose its appeal with the masses as a form of dance music, but it also gained a new audience of serious musicians. The audience may be smaller, but the loyalty is much stronger than that of Johnny and Sally, who will always turn to the newer and "edgier" music of the day simply because it is popular. Jazz is now played and loved by people AROUND THE WORLD. Everyday jazz reaches new emotional depths and pulls at the soul. Just simply because the common man doesn't appreciate it, doesn't mean its time has passed or that the art form is no longer valid. Most people are stupid, after all.

(This blog was originally posted on Jazz Heresy @ http://jazzheresy.blogspot.com/)