Date:	05-Aug-2001 21:15:31
From:	Jackie
	Or has the average jazz listener become too complacent to even bother trying to understand anything that is not easily and immediately accessible?

 

Date:	05-Aug-2001 22:46:49
From:	Gerard Cox (stacked4th@hotmail.com)
	No, the definition of "jazz" has simply gotten too expansive, to the point that anything that is improvised ensemble music may be categorized as "jazz." Balkan "Jazz" is only the greatest reach where concerns this problem. I for one don't understand the pressure people feel to call any piece of improvised ensemble music "Jazz." To me, "Jazz" has some cultural connotation that regardless of whether one is swinging or playing free, there is at least a consistent "jazz" feel, that is basically a blues inflection with a sense of urgency underlying it, that's usually caused by a driving pulse. There is a lot of music called jazz nowadays that honestly has a lot more in common with modern classical music than "Jazz", completely lacking the feeling that I'm talking about. I'm not going to name names but the trend in recent years has been to give Eurocentric or World Music improvisors benefit of the doubt that their music is Jazz. I don't believe it's the musicians who insist on their music being validated as properly "jazz" either. The jazz media bears responsibility for being inclusive to the point that credibility is lost with the meaning of "Jazz." Which leads me to ask the question: If Jazz means nothing more than improvised ensemble music, then what's the point? At that rate shouldn't we just call all music that isn't improvised the same- just lump rock, country, classical music together, call it schlock n' roll... Because if we call all music that is improvised Jazz, this is the logical extension of that premise. Finally: instead of "Balkan Jazz", to be more honest and accountable we could say "improvised world music", since there is nothing truly "Jazz" about Balkan music. Improvisation is the great strength of jazz, but "Jazz" proper has no monopoly on the potential for music to be improvised. I think the jazz media needs to recognize this; world musics for example involved improvisation long before jazz came around.

 

Date:	06-Aug-2001 10:16:02
From:	Eduardo Goicoechea (edugoico@hotmail.com)
	I would like you know the main characteristics of the jazz that's being played today. Is its name "modern jazz" or which is exactly? I hear to musicians like Brad Mehldau, James Carter, Don Byron, the last album of John Scofield, the last one of Joshua Redman, and the last (and astonishing) album of Steve Coleman and I think that that music is too "brainy", it lacks emotion and is too "erudite". There's no doubt that they are great musicians but I don't like the music the play right now (I love previous records of John Scofield since his Miles Davis' era as well as records of Joshua Redman -"Wish" for example with Pat Metheny..., or previous albums with rap of Steve Coleman.)

 

Date:	07-Aug-2001 19:51:08
From:	Ahmad Kinsey
	These are the best years for jazz, in many years...So many things happening on various fronts. Yet, the market place is too thin for anyone to make a buck out of it..

 

Date:	08-Aug-2001 02:18:25
From:	Wanda
	Has Jazz become too cerebral? Obviously not. Just check out the very immature war of words that is developing in the “more popular in europe” Jazz Ruminations section. These people need to grow up before they can truly appreciate Jazz.

 

Date:	08-Aug-2001 14:53:52
From:	Ralph Reno (renor@hotmail.com)
	I was involved in the discussion going on in the European jazz thread. It is so typical of the snobs in that continent to criticize the United States. Everyone knows the French and the English are especially guilty of claiming superiority to Americans. Any attempt to defend the U.S. will stir them up into a frenzy of insults. Things got so heated in that thread that someone fabricated a message using my name (at least it was message defending America). Americans should stop romanticizing Europe and remember that in this century they have wallowed in the blood of millions. I believe they embrace classical music and jazz to demonstrate their exceptional intellectual abilities. Maybe they don’t even enjoy Jazz as much as Americans, but listen to it because they think it enhances their imagined sophistication. Just my opinion.

 

Date:	08-Aug-2001 20:03:52
From:	Patrick (France)
	I can see how our behavior might seem a little condescending to a country composed of homicidal rednecks married to one of their first cousins. If Americans had their way, they would take their guns out of their closets and kill everything that got in their path, maybe stopping off at a primary school to do a little target practice. Americans are wallowing in the blood of their own children.

 

Date:	08-Aug-2001 20:57:26
From:	Princess Leah
	If Mr. Reno had not tossed his grenade into this thread we'd still be talking about jazz. Politics tends to turn into an endless teenage argument (see the Europe thread if you doubt this) so it is better to sidestep the challenge and return to jazz.

 

Date:	09-Aug-2001 14:54:55
From:	Andreas
	I guess Wanda's comment was right on target. Let's talk about jazz, sall we? Waddaya say? When Bird and Diz came on the scene, a lot of the people who had followed swing as primarily music for dancing and partying dropped out and didn't make the leap with the beboppers. Obviously bebop was too "cerebral" or something like that for the people who were essentially dance music fans. In the 60's the level of abstraction was taken to another step by the avant-guarde and free jazz players. Once again a significant portion of the audience did not follow along. That's not unique to jazz, however. The most popular "classical" perfomances are the so-called "Pops" performances, which might be called "classical-lite". What I think is different is that there is definite "dumbing down" of tastes in music, films, etc. as a result of the media's focus on "blockbuster" entertainment. It's much easier and efficient to try to cram The Backstreet Boys (or whatever) down everyone's throat than to actualy promote the diversity of styles and sounds that are out there. Witness the promotion of "jazz" as Muzak for yuppie cocktail parties. After a while it becomes so much easier to just accept the pidgeon holes that are presented to you, and whatever doesn't fit in neatly gets discarded. Having said that, I think that great music of any style is music that hits you on both an intelectual level. In my case there was something about jazz that just struck a nerve immediately when I started listening to it, though I certainly didn't get all the complexities involved (still don't probably), but it motivated me to make the effort to listen and learn about it.

 

Date:	09-Aug-2001 14:55:21
From:	Andreas
	I guess Wanda's comment was right on target. Let's talk about jazz, sall we? Waddaya say? When Bird and Diz came on the scene, a lot of the people who had followed swing as primarily music for dancing and partying dropped out and didn't make the leap with the beboppers. Obviously bebop was too "cerebral" or something like that for the people who were essentially dance music fans. In the 60's the level of abstraction was taken to another step by the avant-guarde and free jazz players. Once again a significant portion of the audience did not follow along. That's not unique to jazz, however. The most popular "classical" perfomances are the so-called "Pops" performances, which might be called "classical-lite". What I think is different is that there is definite "dumbing down" of tastes in music, films, etc. as a result of the media's focus on "blockbuster" entertainment. It's much easier and efficient to try to cram The Backstreet Boys (or whatever) down everyone's throat than to actualy promote the diversity of styles and sounds that are out there. Witness the promotion of "jazz" as Muzak for yuppie cocktail parties. After a while it becomes so much easier to just accept the pidgeon holes that are presented to you, and whatever doesn't fit in neatly gets discarded. Having said that, I think that great music of any style is music that hits you on both an intelectual level. In my case there was something about jazz that just struck a nerve immediately when I started listening to it, though I certainly didn't get all the complexities involved (still don't probably), but it motivated me to make the effort to listen and learn about it.

 

Date:	09-Aug-2001 19:37:44
From:	eduardo goicoechea (edugoico@hotmail.com)
	I still have the same opinion after reading Andreas' comment. I enjoyed almost all the previous records of Joshua Redman, John Scofield or Steve Coleman and most of them were not definetly commercial. I agree that you have to "learn" to hear jazz music, it has taken me time too to comprehend some styles of jazz as well as other musics like Stravinsky's. But when I thought I had "educated" my mind to hear any kind of music, suddenly the last records of those artists are TREMENDOUSLY BORING for me. Is it a plague?

 

Date:	09-Aug-2001 21:51:05
From:	albert
	I agree with Eduardo but I don't think the musicians he mentioned were ever among the best jazz musicians anyway. I liked some of Redman's earlier albums but I've never put him in a league with a Henderson or a Konitz or a Lacy. There's talent and then there's greatness.

 

Date:	10-Aug-2001 15:30:50
From:	Jeff
	Cerebral? Why, it is a known fact that jazz is both produced in the player and processed in the listener in the part of the brain responsible for such demanding tasks as trigonometry, small engine repair, and choosing just the right salad dressing with dinner. How many people can play Thelonious Monk? When was the last time you tried to get a lawnmower repaired? How many people just order the house dressing to save themselves the intellectual embarassment? These are the times we live in. What, exactly, is my point? Perhaps I should be asking YOU that, with your big fancy college degrees. Now, what was the question again?

 

Date:	10-Aug-2001 20:31:19
From:	Norm
	Big fancy college degrees? I'm just here repairing my lawnmower outback in my shop listening to Monk on the tape player. House salad? Hell, it's canned fruit salad. Got a can opener?

 

Date:	11-Aug-2001 07:36:30
From:	Alison
	What jazz? It's such a vague word that includes anyone who wants to use it. So, it goes from the complex and profound to the simple and/or banal. Too cerebral? I don't know what we're talking about here - too general of a statement.

 

Date:	11-Aug-2001 19:28:01
From:	jaykay
	As in many other creative fields, jazz has drifted so far from its roots that the qualities which made it vital and attracted a sizeable audience have become submerged in a morass of experimentation. Change is not synonymous with progress. The original and earlier forms of jazz were anything but cerebral; their appeal was to the emotions, via the intangible referred to as "swing." When that phenonmenon ceased to be pre-eminent, in the name of innovation, the roots began to die, even though the term "jazz" was still applied to the result. Most unfortunately, the trend has continued for decades, and the audience has correspondingly diminished.

 

Date:	12-Aug-2001 13:01:46
From:	harry
	it's all music man! 'charlie parker'

 

Date:	12-Aug-2001 20:55:59
From:	eduardo goicoechea (edugoico@hotmail.com)
	I agree 100% with Jaykay. After learning to appreciate be-bop, cool, hard bop, free... I'm going back to the clasics, specially Art Tatum, Billy Holiday, Teddy Wilson, Lester Young... Are there any comparable genious today who could give me goose pimples like they do?

 

Date:	13-Aug-2001 13:01:11
From:	xman
	I gotta say... the thing I like most about "jazz" is that it allows me to take it in on any level I desire. It CAN be very cerebral; it can also not be. I can listen to something, really study it in headphones, or I can just sit back and let it wash over me. I enjoy doing both. By the way, Patrick from France, next time someone tries to overrun your country, don't call us. The French, British, and Americas have ALL made tremendous contributions to the the world of music/art/etc, but don't forget who bailed your sorry asses out of subjugation not once, but TWICE in the 20th century.'Nuff said.

 

Date:	13-Aug-2001 23:32:45
From:	Naghmeh (Iran)
	xman, What happened in France during the first and second World Wars is a thing of the past. Patrick is correct, dementia in your country is alarmingly high. The United States is the only country where people habitually go to public places to carry out a massacre. Europe might have gone crazy sixty years ago for a short amount of time, but your whole population is insane today, with no end to the madness in sight. How many more Columbines will take place before your blood thirsty citizens are satisfied? The truth hurts. I will not continue writing on this thread but you are welcome to read my opinion regarding this subject in the above mentioned European thread. 'Nuff said.

 

Date:	13-Aug-2001 23:43:48
From:	Vincent Siauw
	The fact that there are jam bands, and the resurgence of soulful organ trio (just look at AAJ recently: Bobby Broom, Rodney Jones, Adam Levy, Pat Martino), may be the indicators that it is true when one says that jazz is becoming too cerebral. On the other hand, one must also admit that jazz is not easy to play, if not to say the most difficult music. Mastering the technique is already a big task, which can lead to make the music becomes cerebral. Any good jazz musicians out there -famous or not- are those who must have gone beyond mastering their instrument. It is only then, one can play music (jazz) that is more than just cerebral, but also emotional. Either that or the person is very2 gifted.

 

Date:	14-Aug-2001 09:56:18
From:	xman
	Nagmeh, you got a lot of cajones - being from Iran - to point a finger at ANY country, let alone the U.S. What do you want me to say about the craziness of the ridiculous gun policies in this country? There is no defense, but allow me this: you can point to the "rednecks" and the Columbines all you like, but the fact remains that, awful as these things are, they represent a mere fraction of this country, and on a per capita basis, are extremely rare - albeit tragic - occurances. I'd be real careful if I were you of taking the view point that these unfortuante few elements are representative of the country on the whole. What if we just assume that all Iranians are terrorists and a bunch of spineless sheep, being led by crazed religious zealots? Step down, sir... you've got your own "Columbines" to be concerned with. And, as far as the WWI/WWII stuff, yeah - it's in the past, but the fact remains if it wasn't for this country, Europe and perhaps even your little corner of the world would be wrapped in swastikas. Although, from the way Iranian women are treated in your country, maybe your country is not that far removed from the evils of Hitler and Co.? Now, truly... "nuff said."

 

Date:	14-Aug-2001 15:01:29
From:	Nagmeh
	xman, They represent a mere fraction of you county? You have got to be joking. These episodes of madness are non-existent in the rest of the word (with the exception of one case in Australia a couple of years ago). When you exclude the United States, the per capita basis worldwide is indeed a fraction of the Earth’s population. Looking at the number of killings in your country and comparing them to your population of about 300 million people reveals the alarming extent of the problem. What is worse is that this is not a recent development in your gory history. Your thirst for blood extends back to the 1960s when one of your exemplary citizens decided to do some target practice from the top of a bell tower in one of your universities. Of course you also have another segment of lunatics that pop up regularly all over your country and kill innocent people for no apparent reason. I am talking about the your mass murderers, another American original. You claim these occurrences are tragic, yet you make movies idolizing these crazies (Natural Born Killers and Summer of Sam as an example). By the way, yes I do have a lot of cajones and being from Iran has nothing to do with it. You might want to check the crime and murder rate in my country. Better to be lead by “crazed religious zealots” than a bunch of corporate puppets. You are very quick to preach. If I were you I would be very careful not to get my head blown off by one of your own citizens (be it a Columbine type crazy, a mass murderer virtuoso or maybe a drive by shooting gang member). Good luck to you and your family.

 

Date:	14-Aug-2001 15:31:36
From:	Polly
	Hey, let's all move to Iran!! Where everything is just so nice! Shuushhhhh we don't want to create a big rush . . .

 

Date:	14-Aug-2001 16:34:01
From:	xman
	Ok, Negmah... you've made your point(s). I stand with you in your disgust at the psycho lunacy that permeates my country in regards to firearms, etc. But you are incorrect in your perception that this is representative of the U.S. on the whole; these ARE isolated incidents that receive (rightfully so) enormous attention world-wide due to their horrific nature. However, I'm not "preaching" to anyone, the only thing I'm trying to point out to the earlier post is that, for all the bad that goes on in this country, there's a lot of good, too. Everyone is quick to rip the U.S., everyone wants to denounce "The Great Satan." Well, that is until some crazed despot seizes power and starts butchering the citizenry, or when a major drought or calamity hits people that already live in a friggin' desert, or whatever. As much as the U.S. gets hammered by folks abroad, it seems that when someone needs a handout, they know where to go. Don't believe it? Ask the Soviets, who even while we were sworn enemies during the Cold War, were still receiving humanitarian aid from the U.S. in the form of grains and medicine. In fact, your own country is and has been in a similar position. I can't tell from your post if you've ever been here, but if you have than you'd know that there is a humanitarian spirit here, yes - along with the inevitable evil that comes along with an open FREE society. Before you start wishing my family well, take a look at your own. At least we don't treat our women as chattel, and have the right to express ourselves. Tell me - how many "legally sanctioned" jazz websites in Tehran, sir??

 

Date:	14-Aug-2001 16:37:57
From:	xman
	Oh, Negmah... one other thing. Just re-read your posts for fun, and discovered another falsehood. "Mass murders - another American original"? Wrong, dear chap - the King of Mass Murders was Russian, and in case I'm mistaken, Jack the Ripper was British! Cheers.

 

Date:	14-Aug-2001 16:40:40
From:	xman
	Nagmeh - one other post-script: should I be checking the murder rate in your country committed by its citizens or your government? Please advise.

 

Date:	14-Aug-2001 17:18:10
From:	Conrad
	You're a bunch of blowhearts who undoubtedly bore your own families with your teenage politics.

 

Date:	14-Aug-2001 18:32:38
From:	Nagmeh
	xman, Gosh, I was wrong. Americans did not invent mass murde but they sure embraced the concept and made of it an art form. Congratulations. My family is doing fine, thanks. My wife is my equal and my partner. She has a college education and agrees with me completely. If I recall correctly there was a time when women could not vote in your country. There was also a time when your black citizenry had to sit in the back of your busses. The land of the free? I was talking about the crime committed by our citizens, of course. Your “post-script” obviously demonstrates that you think our government is murderous…here are a few concepts associated with the government of your country: atomic bomb, NRA, Vietnam, Rodney King, napalm, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, KKK. I could expand this list if you wish, just let me know. Cheers.

 

Date:	14-Aug-2001 18:57:04
From:	xman
	Conrad, I believe that's "blowhards" - no? And, you do have a point - I only wished to discuss Miles and Co., it's just I don't like seeing my country, however flawed it may be, get raked over the coals. Point taken.

 

Date:	14-Aug-2001 19:38:38
From:	Mike Chouinard (mikecho@sunshinecable.com)
	... for dolts, maybe. Look, jazz was supplanted as a popular form of dance music decades ago, yet anyone who tries to take it seriously as art is dismissed as elitist. Anyone who's actually tried to listen to a broad range of the stuff should be able to appreciate the many faces it's taken on in recent decades. It covers all moods and pulls from all types of music, and, yes, even in the avant garde, there is a sense of humor. (Actually, more so than in the mainstream stuff!) This discussion is really ridiculous. I wonder what all the Cecil Taylors, McCoy Tyners and others of the jazz world – who drove cabs, washed dishes and did all sorts of odd jobs to support themselves – think of beling labelled "elitist." This label somehow never seems to come up with classical musicians. p.s. The Ganelin Trio has a nice piece with an appropriate title called "Who's afraid of Anthony Braxton?" Too many, I'd say. Foo

 

Date:	14-Aug-2001 22:02:18
From:	Nagmeh
	I can understand someone responding in defense of their country, I cannot fault you for that. However you should note that it was the Americans that started the debate in the Europe section and then spread it to this thread, so don’t cry foul. Hospitality is not one of your stronger competencies since this is an American site. You should make people feel welcome instead of telling them how superior you are or reminding them how you saved their countries from tyranny decades ago.

 

Date:	14-Aug-2001 23:08:24
From:	Jeff
	HEY! You kids play nice, or I'll turn the Internet around and take you all home right now!

 

Date:	15-Aug-2001 00:16:53
From:	Sam
	Nagmeh: My favorite song is Killing an Arab by The Cure.

 

Date:	15-Aug-2001 07:59:35
From:	RG
	I will pray for your sick soul.

 

Date:	15-Aug-2001 08:47:29
From:	Jon
	Nagmeh and Sam deserve each other, vicious, petty people who feed the sickness of the world.

 

Date:	15-Aug-2001 09:35:11
From:	xman
	Alright, I'm part of the problem here, I'll try and be part of the solution... let's just call the Nationality Battle off, ok? We're not going to get anywhere, and I strongly suspect none of us is as evil as the other suspects - I mean shit, we all have a love of jazz in common, how bad could we all be? Now if Magweh tells me he likes Britney Spears and N'Sync, that might be a problem! Instead, how about if everyone chimes in on the question posed, if you haven't already? I've given it a bit more thought, and I think that, on a literal level, jazz just might be a bit "cerebral" for your "average" listener, at least to grasp right away. I mean, if someone is an avid music lover or musician, then there's a framework in place and probably a willingness to listen actively to something, but a casual listener probably isn't willing to invest the time to truly appreciate or understand a given work. But, jazz probably isn't immune to this; classical music certainly would be an example and in the end, something out of the comfort zone for most people, I suppose, might be viewed as "cerebral."

 

Date:	15-Aug-2001 13:14:25
From:	Nagmeh
	I am labeled vicious and petty because I dared to criticize your society. I hope Americans are more like xman, who can carry out an argument in a constructive manner, and less like Sam and Jon, who will insult and chastise with one self righteous sentence. Unfortunately I get the impression the latter is more common in your country from the messages on this web site. There is nothing that will hurt the psyche of a people more than the truth. The responses to my messages show just how much the truth has wounded your American pride.

 

Date:	15-Aug-2001 14:39:04
From:	Jon
	I am not an American, perhaps vicious and petty struck a nerve with you? A little too close?

 

Date:	15-Aug-2001 16:19:07
From:	Audrey
	Let's see: "Like dogs you are quickly stirred into anger." I quote Nagmeh from the Europe thread. Look in the mirror - you spew venom like the worst of your enemies.

 

Date:	15-Aug-2001 17:29:50
From:	Sam
	I don’t think this thread is the right place for Nagmeh to air his opinions. He is correct in stating that it was a couple of Americans that started the whole argument in the Jazz in Europe thread. These guys then brought the granade, as Princess Leah put it, to this thread. I’m afraid we spewed some of our own venom. Ok, so everybody is at fault. Let’s go back to discussing Jazz. If you have some venom to get off your chest, go to the Jazz in Europe section and spew until your heart is content Ok?

 

Date:	15-Aug-2001 18:32:35
From:	Alan
	I have a better suggestion, don't go to the Europe section, find another website or try growing up.

 

Date:	15-Aug-2001 20:31:44
From:	Wendel Wilkie
	I think there are so many musics calling themselves jazz that it's difficult to sort it out. Smooth jazz is one realm and jazz played by Anthony Braxton is another. Whatever you think of either it's difficult to imagine them in the same category. I happen to admire a Braxton much more than smooth jazz simply on the basis of the difference in ambitions and integrity. But I must admit I listen to Mulligan or Ellington or Miles or Corea much more than Braxton. Perhaps, it's a matter of defining what is the mainstream since be-bop. Is something like "Smooth Jazz" really jazz?

 

Date:	15-Aug-2001 21:29:06
From:	Mike
	I don’t believe classical music or Jazz is about comfort zones. It’s not about music clicking in your head or analyzing and understanding a composition. Music is about what happens to your heart and soul. I was a big fan of classical music before I started listening to Jazz. I listened to Mozart or Vivaldi because of how their melodies made me feel, there was nothing cerebral going on. Same thing with Jazz. I certainly don’t invest time to truly appreciate or understand whatever Jazz song I’m listening to…I invest that time enjoying the music. What I feel when I listen to Jazz is a wonderfully indescribable sensation. I don’t know exactly how to put it in words…I certainly would not call it cerebral.

 

Date:	15-Aug-2001 23:54:11
From:	Jeff
	Think, for a moment, if you will. Are there Iranian jazz musicians? I can't think of one. What about Iranian salad dressings? Nope. Yet, there is French dressing. What does this tell us about the world we live in? Not a damned thing. Yet, we are lost. Perhaps this is why jazz speaks to us. It is transcendent, beyond the limitations of our own particular time and place, even our own identities melt away and become part of it. The ability of jazz to transcend nationality, or salad dressing, speaks to an inherent shared humanity which exists in all creatures. Except those creatures who cut in front of me in line at the grocery store. This is not about them. What I'm saying is, we should stop quarreling amongst ourselves and work together in the spirit of brotherhood to halt the spread of country music. Now, don't you all feel better?

 

Date:	16-Aug-2001 00:49:16
From:	Mike
	Halt the spread of country music only? How about rap... PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE, WILL SOME ONE TELL ME WHO TOOK THE "C" OUT OF RAP?

 

Date:	16-Aug-2001 01:29:00
From:	Carlos (Argentina)
	I don’t want to start another heated discussion here but I can’t just sit back and do nothing after reading some of the historical inaccuracies posted on this site. Americans did enter WWII, but not until they were attacked by the Japanese and had no choice in the matter. Churchill had been trying for months to convince the United States to enter the war with no success. The general feeling in the U.S. at the time was to stay away from the conflict since it was basically a European problem. Evidence shows that British intelligence had decoded messages indicating that Japan was going to launch its strike on Pearl Harbor. Churchill did not pass this information to the U.S. because he knew that the attack would force them to declare war on the Axis powers. If the U.S. saved the European’s sorry asses, as xman kindly stated in his note, it was not because of the “humanitarian spirit” of the American people. I also do not think that humanitarian efforts should include a “you should be thankful I lent a hand” stage or a “were would you be without our help” phase after the fact. If your own self interest had not been at stake, the world might very well be wrapped in swastikas.

 

Date:	16-Aug-2001 06:37:00
From:	Ann
	Well said, enough said, now back to jazz. OK

 

Date:	16-Aug-2001 09:55:21
From:	Jeff
	So we've established that jazz and politics don't mix. Yet, gin and tonic go together wonderfully. So what if we mixed gin and tonic and jazz? Or gin and tonic and Ted and Alice? Either way, you're in for a fun evening. The point being. Remember what Charlie Chaplin said, "In the end, everything is a gag." Lighten up. Let's mix up a pitcher of martinis, throw on some Miles Davis, and pretend it's 1957 again. And then, we can build a fort from the couch cushions and pretend we're John Wayne. Do you think the Duke cared whether jazz was too cerebral? Did Duke Ellington care if Vera Miles ended up with John Wayne or Jimmy Stewart? My point exactly.

 

Date:	16-Aug-2001 20:51:34
From:	Erik Lund
	Jazz and politics do go together(and have). Just not "pissing contests". but anyway... I think the music has this sort of "complex" aura around it. A lot of people have gotten the 2&4/power-chords thing drummed into their head for so long - that something else seems to be like "work" for them. My friends who get turned onto the music - seem to listen to other stuff aside from MTV's hit of the week...like modern classical, or gagaku, or indie rock - where there are more "challenging" (on the ears) things going on than simple beats and funny/catchy lyrics. I pop in some DKV Trio - and my indie-rock-listening buddies fall in love with Hamid Drake. I wouldn't say cerebral - just that there has to be some sort of connecting point for a lot of people - because most people get comfortable in what they listen to and a huge jump is just going to turn them away...

 

Date:	17-Aug-2001 16:13:51
From:	NG2
	"Cerebral" is too vague, and "Jazz" is too vague. Is there no solid ground? Guess not.

 

Date:	18-Aug-2001 11:48:50
From:	Joel Fass
	A Professional Musician's Opinion: The best art is human in the truest sense and reaches to people's souls. This basic truth has been proven over and over in the "vox popular"---which is why, given musicians of equal sincerity and even talent, some are beloved and others soon forgotten. Creative people think a lot, that's a given. The problem is not "cerebral" versus "emotional" (in the eye of the beholder, anyway) but LACK of thought in a sense. Too much self-indulgence in jazz (and other art forms), is boring, turns listeners off and also is the sign of less-than-mature artistry, in my opinion. Young musicians are signed and promoted by record companies, etc. anxious to make a quick buck. Young musicians usually have a lot more chops than musical maturity. (Trust me, there are very few Clifford Browns EVER, and the young players being pushed now can play, mostly, but don't even come approach that category). It takes time and maturity to make intersting music. This is a big problem in here the U.S., where the worship and promotion of Youth has become, or should be, a worldwide embarrassment for thinking people. We've become such a dumb culture, and coupled with our arrogance this makes us seem to think that every thing or person we foist on the world will be accepted, digested, and replicated with drooling servitude. Anyway, the best, maturest artists have built-in senses of editing that preclude listener boredom. Why waste time listening to anything less? Life is short. Also, current jazz (among the heavily promoted players) is also boring to me because it suffers from very weak writing, for many of the above reasons. It takes as much time seasoning to get the insight and life experience to write good music as to play it. Finally, accessiblility is neither a dirty word nor mutually exclusive with "creativity". Let's not take this all that seriously. Most people that come out to hear music are not obsessed with Art, but want a little from everyday problems. Can we give them a break?

 

Date:	18-Aug-2001 15:43:41
From:	Michael
	I think part of the reason so-called cerebral jazz struggles to find an audience is the way jazz music is marketed and packaged. Rather than introducing consumers to new types of jazz, record labels and big retail chains (Borders, et al) push compilations, and even new releases, that putatively set a certain mood. So instead of getting something like "An Introduction to Modal Jazz," we get "Jazz for A Rainy Afternoon." Another problem is the overabundance of inane, babbling liner notes. I rarely find liner notes that enhance my understanding and enjoyment of the music. I mean, does anyone really understand the liner notes to Miles Davis' Plugged Nickel collection? Are liner notes that teach the listener about what they're hearing too much to ask for?

 

Date:	20-Aug-2001 09:25:24
From:	Indi
	too cerebral for what?

 

Date:	20-Aug-2001 09:26:51
From:	Indi
	too cerebral for whom?

 

Date:	20-Aug-2001 13:07:06
From:	Hal
	For the average jazz listener to enjoy. Who's the average jazz listener? What's average jazz? What sells? Smooth jazz? If this is the case then it probably is too cerebral, smooth jazz seems to be more like background, mood music - it's not meant for careful listening. The triumph of swing music, Ellington let's say, is that it combined accessability and substance.

 

Date:	20-Aug-2001 23:47:06
From:	Jeff
	Technically, "average" jazz is 98.6 degrees. Or am I thinking of the average human body temeperature? What business is that of yours?

 

Date:	22-Aug-2001 14:35:48
From:	plunger
	jazz is cerebral..but it is also emotive.....that swinging grooves! guys are trying to bring something new, breaking the rules, they are pushing...!So, it is now on the right place! muisic for musiccians!!!!!!!

 

Date:	22-Aug-2001 14:35:52
From:	plunger
	jazz is cerebral..but it is also emotive.....that swinging grooves! guys are trying to bring something new, breaking the rules, they are pushing...!So, it is now on the right place! muisic for musiccians!!!!!!!

 

Date:	22-Aug-2001 14:37:49
From:	plunger
	first you have to feel it..then think about it!!!!!!!

 

Date:	24-Aug-2001 13:05:42
From:	RC
	No matter what the complexity, there is a well-established litmus test for true jazz: "If it ain't got that swing, it don't mean a thing."

 

Date:	24-Aug-2001 13:23:00
From:	Seagirl
	There seems to be a difference in the popularity of vocal versus instrumental music. Jazz vocalists, as in Jane Monheit and Diana Krall, have not lost their popularity or become "cerebral". (granted, there are more cerebral singers like Jeanne Lee or Dominique Eade)

 

Date:	24-Aug-2001 13:30:03
From:	Jack Twomey
	If you put a jazz CD on and don't like it, take it off. Put another one on. Repeat until you understand and like what you hear.

 

Date:	24-Aug-2001 23:14:49
From:	Susan (different65@hotmail.com )
	The question was... Has Jazz become too cerebral for even the average jazz listener to comprehend and enjoy? Jazz is something we feel and unique to each and every listening experience. There is no right or wrong way to understand music. It just is.

 

Date:	25-Aug-2001 11:36:04
From:	Tom Phillips (jazz@superpa.net)
	Well, looks like the "old guy" has to join the fray. While reading down to this point - I found more childish politics than about music! Back to the question: You have to go back to the "de-popularization" of jazz, when the president of AFofMusicians president James Cesar(Aptly named) Petrillo called a strike against recording - and that gave rise to the vocalists and vocals. Then you had the craziness of WWII where some intelect said ALL solo's HAD to be written out and approved for radio broadcasts, because some turncoat may be sending "secret messages to the enemy!" How's that for killing "improvisation." The failure of record sales,the flop of the 45's, intro of LP's, Stereo & CD's gave new life to the industry - it also introduced those who turned the MUSIC business into the music BUSINESS - a sad comentary that STILL exists today! Following major surgery this year, I FORCED myself to sit thru the 2000 Newport "Jazz" festival - and almost had a relapse! An hour of noise, moslty dancers, and some guy who was supposed to be the current "jazz" rave - a 10 minute din of whatever called BANG,BANG,BANG to which I submitted a review for the magazine for which I write - DUMB,DUMB,DUMB. This is not the fault of real musicians. This is the kid A&R people thinking that those who danced in the aisle to BG & teeners who swooned over Sinatra with Dorsey that it was the DANCERS who were jazz, NOT the music! Since then you can see a TV presentation where you learn the names of 75 Producers,Directors, Gaffers, Beauticians, Wardrobe people, caterers, limo drivers, and at the very end of the credits - and "members" (un-named) of the orchestra. A HUGE slap in the face! Also everybody and his 3rd cousin are issuing CD's regardless of talent - and the field has become muddled. Wanna hear jazz - try Larry Vokovich's "YOUNG AT HEART", new singers like Rene Marie, and that latest senssation from the Portland (Ore) area, Amandah Jantzen. I'll get off my soapbox by quoting one of the truly greats = Bill (Count) Basie - who, when asked what is good - "It makes you wanna pat your foot!" I realized, when I lectured several times on jazz at a local college = there are 25 odd "types" of jazz - and each has it's following - but WHATEVER your style, do you get out and support LIVE music when it hits your area - and LISTEN & truly appreciate the artists, or sit in the stands like sheep screamaing louder than the "musicians' on stage with their strobes & gimmicks. 'Nuff said. tp

 

Date:	25-Aug-2001 23:22:12
From:	Jeff
	Remember all that stuff about salad dressing, earlier? I have since recanted my position on that. And take everything I said about jazz and everything I was for, I'm now against. And vice versa. And when all is said and done, remember what Miles Davis said, "Please pass me some more of that corn." After which, he said, "Talking about jazz is like dancing about art." Notice that he's dead now? Let this be a warning to everyone about where that sort of talk will get you.

 

Date:	26-Aug-2001 16:56:41
From:	Brian Van Mols (bvanmols@frontier.net)
	Man, it's all so easy! In 1939, when I was eight, I was invited to spend a week at friend's summer cottage. While every body else was swimming I discovered a stack of 78's and a windup Victrola. The records were mostly Teddy Wilson and Joe Bushkin solos. Those records changed my life. Sixty two years later, while I'm typing this, I'm listening to the GRP All Star Big Band's "All Blues" which followed "Night and the City" by Kenny Barron and Charlie Haden. The common thread? It all swings like mad. What's the point? Listen, listen, listen. If you don't like it, don't listen to it. If you do like it, buy it. It is pretty clear that the more visceral the music the better it sells. Listen to Scofield with Medeski or Larry Goldings. Jack McDuff is dead but his music isn't. I saw Kevin Eubanks at the Telluride Jazz Celebration a couple of weeks ago and he just killed us! Who knew he could play like that? But, that's jazz, too. The absolute joy of discovery attached to hearing something for the first time. I can still remember my initial reaction to Miles' "Kind of Blue" and "How High the Moon" as played by the early Jazz at the Philharmonic groups. Wow! Just knocked out. Same was true of early Armstrong, Bix, Benny, Duke, Lester, Billie,Tatum, Hawkins, Big Ben Webster, Parker, Gillespie, Bud Powell, Mingus. And Miles. And Coletrane. And Woody. And Getz. And Mulligan and the West Coasters. And through all those earlier years on up into the 80's, the Count. Eduardo wants to listen to current day genius. Try Pat Metheney or Chick Corea or Kenny Barron or Terrance Blanchard or Gary Burton or Brad Mehldau or Rubacaba or Geri Allen. Or, God help him, Wynton. His box set, "Live at the Vanguard", deserves a major listen. It swings all over the place. And that's what it's all about. The music needs the groove to be accessable. When it gets too cerebral, it almost always stops swinging and, among other things, drives the young listeners right back into the arms of three cord rock and roll. The genius in great jazz is the difficult made accessable. Jarrett's Kohn Concert was thoughtful, maybe even cerebral, but God, did it swing! Later.

 

Date:	27-Aug-2001 14:11:00
From:	Barry Fleming (Barry@johnnykudos.demon.co.uk)
	Try this: run your tape or CD or whatever at no volume until you are well into a track.Turn the volume up to audible and listen for five seconds. What you will hear is just a noise. Now play the whole track from start to finish and listen to the lot. Try to make sense of the overall shape; if you think you can hear it, see if the solos fit logically into this overall shape. In the orthodox styles there is often a shape that you will recognise from the outset, even if it is something you've never heard before. If it is 'Night in Tunisia' I know I'm going to enjoy it because I happen to like the overall chord structure, and the intellectual challenge for me is to decide how well the musicians have responded to the musical challenge for them. A bit of experience will allow you to apply this to live music. Most music I listen to I have to admit is not the most challenging cerebrally. Formal chord changes are fairly predictable. But free music is another kettle of fish, as they say. I no longer have my feet firmly anchored to something safe, I am completely floating. I have to concentrate, and see if I can accept the overall shape, even though I don't know what's going to happen. If I can make it I can get a lot of satisfaction and pleasure, but there are times when I cannot. - and these two states can exist for me within a few seconds of each other in the same piece. I basically believe that improvised music is musicians' music, so if I can't grasp it, then it may be my loss, but it's a similar situation to trying to follow some of the political statements further up the page, and trying to understand what these people are talking about. And I refuse to be drawn into this 'is it Jazz?' argument. I don't think it's important... but what my experience of lots of listening will tell me to ask .. is it original?.. or is the man just jumping on to the latest wagon. I can cope with a lot of free form music, but I do like to have heard the player play something conventional; I then know that he makes his bleats and squarks because he chooses to, and not because he doesn't know what he is playing. Too cerebral?? It really depends on whether you can relate what you're hearing to what's inside your own head.

 

Date:	28-Aug-2001 09:01:54
From:	frAT (ajt726@earthlink.net)
	There are two kinds of music. Good music and bad music. -Edward Kennedy Ellington Some musicians produce music that is unapproachable by large numbers of listeners who consider themselves jazz fans. Some jazz fans try to make more of a tune than the composers/performers ever intended. My 5-year old can catch a mean groove listening to Sam Rivers and Henry Threadgill, just like he can with James Brown or MMW. Yet, Cecil Taylor and Joe Lovano don't especially float his boat. So, who's to say cerebral or no? I think that issue is moot. There are two kinds of music, and a million kinds of listeners. All that really matters is what I really like. Maybe we like the same thing for totally different reasons, or maybe you hate that exact aspect that I most enjoy. Some people can only be happy in an Iranian type society, call that dixieland, some folks need a little more latitude like in France call that Bebop. I into gumbo, a little of this and that, and it's all good. I am America and there is non place I'd rather be than right here right now.

 

Date:	28-Aug-2001 23:03:45
From:	Jeff
	Actually, it was Louis Armstrong who said "There are only two kinds of music, good and bad." Notice that he's dead now, also? Are you spotting the trend? How many more have to die before this issue is resolved?

 

Date:	30-Aug-2001 07:26:57
From:	Jo
	Well, we don't have to worry about this thread becoming too cerebral for the average thread reader.

 

Date:	31-Aug-2001 05:54:17
From:	annunzia
	i hear jazz in records that aren't called jazz and sometimes people will say this is jazz and i'll listen and think not i just did a dj course and i wanted to do jazz djing mixing up the supreme artists the jazz djing i see around me now they take billie and add a drum machine

 

Date:	31-Aug-2001 05:58:11
From:	annunzia
	i hear jazz in music that isn't called jazz

 

Date:	02-Sep-2001 01:17:56
From:	The Blowfish
	I don't know if the music has become too cerbral. I mean, from Louis Armstrong to Ornette Coleman and on, jazz has always been a very complicated music, even if it is rooted in something as simple as the blues. It think many critics and some performers have become to big headed about jazz. Instead of wanting to produce a music that means something to listeners, these people have pushed jazz into the same realm as modern art...so abstract that only those who wear funny hats, dress only in black, and stare at a painting that is nothing but a blue stripe and a red back round and seriously talk about how it reflects the "inner pain of the human soul" can understand it. This is way jazz has such a small audience. Listeners don't get it. And you can't blame the listener. Saying your audience isn't opened minded enough, or "cerebal" enough to understand an hour of music that doesn't have harmony, melody, a cord structure and so on, is pretty lame. Too many people have forgotten that music, and perhaps especially jazz, is about entertaining people. So I don't think its about the music becoming too cerbral, but that much of the music today has drifted so far out there, nobody but a select group of wannabe intellectuals can understand it

 

Date:	02-Sep-2001 04:54:05
From:	John Thornton (aajthome@mindspring.com)
	I thank many of you for your thoughts, particularly, Joel Fass Jazz was popular music into the 60s: 55-62 Mile's blues ballads, the Brubeck Desmond Quartet, Stan Getz Brazilian synthesis. Monk was on the cover of Time (if never truly popular). On the other hand from Parker forward, Jazz became a cultivated taste. Much great Jazz was never enjoyed by more than a dedicated following: The mid 1960s acoustic Miles (Miles Smiles, ESP), Bird, Gillespie, Powell, Shorter, because it was cerebral demanding music. To me the question is not whether and by whom Jazz shall advance, the above fans have stated a case for or against a number of gifted, creative musicians who are advancing the music by their contributions. To my taste Donald Harrison (Nouveau Swing) Joshua Redman (Beyond) the Marsalis brothers, Nicholas Payton (Gumbo Nouveau), Roy Hargrove (every album), Benny Green, Cyrus Chestnut, Christian McBride, Arturo Sandoval, Pat Matheny make albums that are meaningful and satisfying. Players from the earlier era still make great albums like Ray Brown, Charlie Hayden, McCoy Tyner. Because the albums are longer and have more cuts than during the golden age, they require more editing. Fortunately CDs are easy to edit (and the new mastering techniques have cured most of the sound limitations.) After all when Joshua Redman’s great quartet plays live, it plays the best tunes from Beyond and Time Passages. I think jazz radio does not serve the music well. I am most familiar with the KLON staff in southern California, most of whom are probably great guys. But they are not very good at education by putting the cuts they play into the larger context of jazz. An even more serious shortcoming is the failure to find and promote accessible cuts from new releases to help draw listeners into albums. Don’t scream that I am calling for stifling playlists. I remember that during the early 1960s, the stations played cuts that had rhythm and melodies that connected with the audience. The current players may or may not be as gifted as their predecessors, but they all have cuts on their albums with popular appeal. The easier tunes can draw listeners into the more challenging or experimental offerings.

 

Date:	02-Sep-2001 14:05:21
From:	Rusty
	Part of the attraction of Jazz for a long time, certainly since Ellington and maybe since Morton, is that it has been a little more sophisticated and challenging than other forms of popular music. This is one reason why so many jazz listeners (myself among them) have trouble taking "smooth jazz" seriously. Certainly the intellectual tendencies in jazz became more obvious once jazz stopped being the popular form of dance music for young adults. However I think the current jazz scene is very healthy. You have a lot of different people doing an incredible range of things. So long live Free Jazz, long live Neo Traditionalism (heck I even like some of those liner notes by Stanley Crouch preachy as they are) and even long live Neo Swing. Of course the big neo swing revival won't be very long lived, because fads in popular entertainment never are, but at least it was a good fad and some longer lasting things may come out of it. Finally, have you noticed how Ornette Coleman and even Cecil Taylor have become more widely accepted lately? One generation's intellectual bleeding edge of art is the next generation's mainstream baseline. Of course that does little good for the cutting edge artists who are washing dishes to make ends meet :)

 

Date:	05-Sep-2001 19:13:10
From:	Mr. Natural
	Hurrah! for our Cerebrums!! Hurrah! for Jazz!!

 

Date:	08-Sep-2001 08:24:31
From:	Mr. Natural
	Hurrah for our Cerebrums Without them we'd be dumb If it weren't for our Cerebrums What would we have become? Hurrah for our Cerebrums Many monkeys have been undone. Hurrah for our Cerebrums!! We love our opposable thumbs!

 

Date:	09-Sep-2001 11:04:47
From:	R. Jarrell
	It's difficult to believe that the above is an original piece of writing. Perhaps, from the uncollected or notebook pieces of a Stevens, Eliot, Pound, or Bishop? Perhaps, it is a Valery translation?

 

Date:	09-Sep-2001 11:07:26
From:	W. Empson
	Nah, it's just a piece of doggerel. Watch your shoes!

 

Date:	17-Sep-2001 14:40:17
From:	Harold Keys
	I think most jazz listeners find what they want which accounts for the wide range of music that calls itself jazz.

 

Date:	14-Oct-2001 21:09:33
From:	Todd
	My dog and two cats like jazz (and other music). From what I know we're generally not talking about well developed cerebrums here. But one of my cats likes Eric Dolphy and Bill Evans and consistently walks out of the room if I put on smooth jazz. Does this mean my cat (Twinkie) has better taste and perhaps a more developed cerebrum (?) than many of my friends and relatives? I'm not kidding here. When he was a kitten, when I was lying in bed listening to music he'd sit on my chest and look me straight in the eyes and purr whenever I played Count Basie or Lester Young. His tastes have broadened since then. Also,Twinkie will not only leave the room if smooth jazz is played but also if "sweet" swing music, the schlocky kind, Guy Lombardo stuff, is played on the radio. My girlfriend is amazed. We have done experiments and Twinkie will return if the music is changed back to quality music. One night we got him real agitated by putting smooth jazz and Coleman Hawkins discs on the random selector. He nipped my girlfriend when we both started laughing!!

 

Date:	22-Oct-2001 13:23:31
From:	veecee
	The problem is there is too much music being released. It's virtually non-stop.So much music so little time!