What Is Jazz Now?
EC: You mean like, when Charlie Christian showed up with an amp and electric guitar to the gig? Or when Miles put Keith Jarrett in front of a Fender Rhodes, or when Eddie Harris plugged his tenor sax into a Varitone? Um, yes, I, I think there's a place in jazz for electronics (to me this is similar to your first question)...
DM: Some musicians are using odd time signatures (7/8, 11/8/ 13/8); is that really what jazz is suppose to be?
EC: Well, I guess it's cool. I mean I really liked what Steve Coleman was doing with odd time back in the '80s, but for me, I can't listen to that all night, I want to tap my foot and dance if I want to. I think Milt Jackson said something like "it don't mean a thing...if you can't tap your foot to it." It's got to be swingin' at some point during the night. My dad told me back his day, that he and my mom would dance to "Just Friends," by Charlie Parker or "This Is Always," by Earl Coleman. This is music for the people, let's dance!
DM: Just because it's improvisation, is it jazz?
DM: Dizzy called it "our music." If we are playing "our music," there's got to be swing, it's got to be soulful, the feeling of the blues and the African American church has to be up in there somewhere, or else to me, it isn't jazz (America's classical musicanother name Dizzy used in describing "our music"). Charlie Parker had all those ingredients in his playing whenever you heard him (and if you are a young non-African American student of this music, you have to understand and appreciate the full spectrum of Black Music in this country and be fully aware of the socio-political aspects that went into its formation). There are influences from other countries in the music all over the place now, and that's great, but if the soloist is playing stiff and sounding like a classical musician playing what he thinks "our music" is supposed to sound and feel like, well, I shut down immediately on that. No matter how far out John Coltrane got, you always heard that "moan" or "shiver" in his solos. That's the blues, that's the church you are hearing (I think I heard Wynton say that somewhere).
These are some very strong statements from four great musicians from different backgrounds. Almost all agree in some way or another. I personally believe that there is nothing really new in jazz except the approach to the music as an individual player. And what I mean by that is, each instrumentalist, in order to move forward, has to move forward on his instrument. His/her approach to the way the instrument is played and what that approach can bring to the music in an innovative way and usually that is by phrasing, harmony, rhythm and technique. Some players have so many pedals that it is no longer about the music, it's about the effectss and learning to use those effects is like learning a new instrument. I personally don't have the inclination or the patience to do that. I find there are always new techniques to discover in the use on my instrument without dabbling into effects. Playing with musicians such as Tomas Ulrich, Jason Kao Hwang and Ken Filiano, who are masters of improvisation and instrumental acoustic sound effects without the electronics, is good enough for me. But that's me, and you the public may have a totally different take on it.
Did jazz die in 1959? I don't think so. It was on pause for a few years.
What is jazz now? It's whatever we want it to be and that can be a personal issue for each and every one of us.
Page 1, Hal Galper
Page 3, Steve Swell: John Rogers
Page 5, Ed Cherry: Lena Adasheva