Date:	14-Aug-1998 03:27:56
From:	Paul Abella (Pabella3@aol.com)
	how will jazz evolve? I think first it has to de-volve. The problem is that jazz has become high art through the works of the Marsali of the world, and the Stanley Crouches and the Howard Reichs, etc. ad nauseum. John Scofield, Javon Jackson, Medeski, Martin and Wood, Charlie Hunter and guys of their ilk have the right idea. Play jazz from the gut. Until that happens, jazz will be stuck. Jazz professors will make shrines out of their copies of Miles Smiles, and Jazz will be stuck at that very stitch of time. In order for jazz to evolve, the opposite will have to happen. we'll need to go back to what Grant Green and Tina Brooks and Eddie Harris heard in this music: soul. Soul, not in the sense of Stax/Volt, but soul as an element of approaching music. Jazz has lost its heart due to too much elitism and too many textbooks being written about it. Bird had no textbook, Dexter had no textbook, these guys all got out on the road and plyed with rhythm & Blues bands and honed their chops and approach there. This is why the guys who were considered so hugely important to the music had it. they had the blood the Sweat and the tears packed into their bags of experience, something that Ryan Kisor or Geoff Keezer (and don't get me wrong, they're both great musicians who I would love to play with) never had. And that shows!! So if we're going to push this music forward, we'd better take a real look back. Keep Your Ears Open, Paul

 

Date:	21-Aug-1998 04:14:32
From:	Nathaniel Crockett (n.crockett@netnoir.net)
	Very well, young people, musicains and listeners will push forward. However, as the older, card-bearing, dues-paying musicians are a dying breed. Their contributions will be missed. The Clark Terry's, Dorothy Donnegans; fortunately, there are others i.e., John Hicks who constantly push the music genre, jazz. And don't forget, the Fm, and Am stations are spreading the word. Then, the record companies will be compiling, releasing, and creating a new audience. We, the jazz lovers, must support, Live Jazz. Like the previous comments, they have to grow and mature. Appregios, and vertical players are ok, but listen to the likes of Lockjaw Davis and Charlie Rauch, or Clark or Dave Brubeck. They were creators who worked at their craft. Note blowers really infuriate. Sorry, I ramble. Jazz is alive and well. Keep Swingin' and Groovin' High! Nathaniel Crockett

 

Date:	23-Aug-1998 04:18:30
From:	Reid Tamashiro (rtt5@gte.net)
	I have a feeling that in order for jazz to evolve the musicians are going to have to deal with what happened in the 70's, that means jazz-rock/fusion. I think it's part of the history, and it just doesn't seem like the musicians will push the music forward by ignoring fusion.

 

Date:	27-Aug-1998 20:25:49
From:	R Allen (greatvibe@aol.com)
	You know why Jazz is really Dead or dying? I'll tell you. The people playing it are playing WAY OVER most audiences heads. 99% of all potential jazz fans haven't the foggiest idea what the melody is (or if there's any) - not to mention alternate changes or hip phrasing - it all ends up being musical BULLSHIT in their ears - and you know something - they're RIGHT! If you play so esoterically and COMMUNICATE NOTHING - what's the POINT?? The whole idea behind artistic expression is to be UNDERSTOOD. Playing "inside" is just pretentious nonsense that turns people OFF to Jazz, decade after decade. I play jazz for a living and 75% of "modern jazz' is not even understandable to me. And I don't want to WORK that hard trying to figure out some obscure melody that some horn player's jamming some far-out changes on even if I understand it - what's the POINT? Jazz is supposed to be about emotion and FEEL - not some intellectual excercize. If you want to play that way for yourself-fine! But stop trying to sell Jazz that way - it's the final nail on the coffin. Solution to bring back Jazz to the public? Simple: SIMPLIFY. Go back to simple, understandable changes, with releatively easy to listen to harmonics - AND solos a listener can feel, see track and UNDERSTAND in their mind. The music BEFORE 1945 had all those elements and brought more people to Jazz than ever before or since. Vintage Jazz and Swing has been totally IGNORED by the Jazz "establishment" for 40 years - and look where Jazz is today - damned near DEAD. Few clubs, festivals, labels, - and people stay away in droves. Want Jazz to go FORWARD?? Go BACKWARD to the styles introduced by Louis Armstrong, Benny Goodman, Harry James, Count Basie, Jack Teagarden, Eddie Condon, The Duke, Django, Hamp, et al - and STRETCH those idioms. Looking for NEW influences and crossing over w/ other styles just waters down Jazz and is guaranteed to FAIL. if that's the direction we take with this art form, in 10 years we won't even be haing this conversation because Jazz will be DEAD and gone.

 

Date:	03-Sep-1998 05:59:43
From:	Reid (rtt5@gte.net)
	But don't you think the nature of jazz is fusion (not the style of music but the act)? I mean it's growth and development has been about fusing different music styles together. As far as going back to before '45, I love the jazz that came after that. Yah, many people don't get into it, but that doesn't mean it's musical crap. I'm not a musician, but I love all kinds of styles, even the "out" stuff. Some are not melodically oriented but that doesn't mean it doesn't reach me or move me. A lot of jazz requires your full-attention, and many people just don't like to listen to music that way.

 

Date:	08-Oct-1998 12:33:49
From:	John Litwack (john.litwack@oecd.org)
	This is a very interesting discussion. I think that Paul A. hit on some important points. I don't know if I agree that jazz becoming a high art is the problem. But it is certainly true that the jazz of the past had a deep soulfulness that has become rare. I also agree that this has to do with the links between jazz and R&B. Jazz, blues, gospel, R&B all developed together, and continually fed off of each other in the past. They shared a common essence. The musicians of the past grew up surrounded by this essence, which they brought to jazz as a part of their baggage. They had the essence in their soul, and just needed to master a technique to express it. As Paul A. mentioned, these artists could move from jazz to R&B settings with complete ease. Most of them started in R&B. This is no longer true. R&B and jazz have largely parted ways. The blues is fading from popular music. Gospel is also losing its blues inflections. When the "young lions" learn to play hard bop, it is almost like they are learning to master a foreign language. It is very hard, and impossible for many, to learn to speak a foreign language like a native. I therefore agree with much of what Reid is suggesting. While I shed a tear for what has been lost, I don't know if there is really any way back. The future of jazz probably lies in another plane. That just my opinion!

 

Date:	27-Oct-1998 15:44:14
From:	Michael ... from the 'sticks'
	Y2K Jazz ! Jazz is like moving water. It has rivers, streams, and currents, that flow into the big 'Jazz Ocean', and from there onward to the vast 'sea-o-all-genres-o-music'. During any time period, there is construction/evolution in process on portions of the jazz watershed. Some parts are more money generating (popular) than others. Some less popular rivers and streams are equally important for their unique, pure, building-block creativeness. The next years of jazz will continue focusing on the rhythm and beat of the music. Just as humans are different and each with moving emotions, so will jazz. There are times for relaxing/quiet jazz and times for moving jazz. One stream of jazz taking-off and continuing into the cosmos, is jazz that is spiked with one or more of the following spices: Funk, Groove, Soul/Gospel, Afro-Latin, Mambo, Ska, Reggae, Calypso, Cajun, Caribbean, World Beat. Our bodies yearn at times, for this spicy stuff, that spirit and soul can dance to. At other times, more relaxing jazz will rejuvenate. Spicy jazz will generate the most revenue in the coming years, especially among people migrating into the 'jazz ocean' from other genres.

 

Date:	29-Oct-1998 13:44:16
From:	François (francois.casteleyn@advalvas.be)
	You can't kill Jazz. It's true that a little part of Jazz has got a little complicated. But not for everyone. So as far as some people will understand it, it will not die. Now the true evolution of Jazz is to be found at some places where guys like Martin, Medeski & Wood act. Introducing the insertion of electronic music, hip hop or whatever. As they say, the Jazz-nazis will not like it... To me, Jazz must'nt go back to origins to become better than it is now. No, Jazz must be modern and include all styles (like it does now anyway...), be open to all styles and stay good and easy to listen, and complicated to listen, and impossible to listen music. Jazz kicks ass.

 

Date:	22-Dec-1998 11:15:07
From:	Hardy
	I think Tee Tah has stepped into a new genre - called Hip-Bop. Check out Still Boppin/Night in Tunisia a tribute Hip-Bop, Acid is really a Dizzy thing but we call it new. Real Audio at http://frankmoten.simplenet.com

 

Date:	04-Feb-1999 19:37:54
From:	Lyman Medeiros (bigbass@hotbot.com)
	I think Mr. R Allen is way too defensive about this subject. Jazz has always been about innovation, in the 40's and 50's, Duke and Basie and all of those players were innovators. But we've done that already so it is time to move on. If that is not the style of jazz you like, fine. But don't try to dis on other players who are trying to move jazz in a new direction. Players like Joe Lovano who are redifining what it means to play "outside". Or guys like Tain' and Billy Hart and Bill Stewart who are trying to eliminate the bar line for a more free-flowing means of expression. Or Brad Meldhau (sp?) who is re-defining the jazz trio. Or Danilo Perez who is breaking down the barrier between swing and clave. You may look at these players as being to cereberal and self-indulgent just because they don't play the easy-to- digest manner that you prefer. But they, like jazz players all over the world, are trying to push this music in new directions just like all of the great jazz musicians who came before.

 

Date:	08-May-1999 19:22:49
From:	Wilson
	If this country's general population is de-evolving - getting dimmer and cruder - then it becomes difficult to imagine that jazz can become popular music without itself becoming dimmer and cruder. Of course, you can make a good argument that the process is far along and that the best musicians will simply bail-out and go elsewhere. That seems to be happening. The United States may become a backwater of jazz. On another AAJ thread the great trombonist Bob Brookmeyer talks about the advantages of Europe. Recently, I e-mailed a record label and suggested they record Lee Konitz and another musician. The producer replied that he like to record him (and has in the past) but now Konitz spends 85% of his time in Europe which makes recording arrangements difficult. The future is happening now.

 

Date:	16-May-1999 20:16:53
From:	Randy
	Lighten up - so the United States isn't the center of the jazz world anymore - was Europe the originator of the Brady Bunch? Of Rambo? What continent has more televisions? So Europe has the Cistine Chapel, we have the MacDonald's Golden Arches. Hey, how many of their high school kids can hit a moving target with an automatic weapon? Tell me, in how many of their schools can you buy crack in the hallways? Their city schools don't even have metal detectors! There's lots of things we're still leading the world in. So I wouldn't worry all that much about the demise of United States jazz. If you can't watch it on television how good could it have been anyway?

 

Date:	23-May-1999 19:13:24
From:	Matilda
	RANDY: What you need is a good spanking!! Such an attitude! And you sound like such a young man . . . let's hope that your outlook improves - be nice!! No one likes a wet blanket.

 

Date:	27-May-1999 00:17:09
From:	Derrick Smith (dasmith@iei.net)
	I hope I haven't stepped into a match, here. The first thing to delineate is the categorization of music. I honestly have very little idea of what jazz is, although I own and have heard live much music that utilizes some measure of improvisation. Maybe we need to define categories of music by how musicians categorize what they play - which is not helpful, since many of the best so-called jazz artists (I'm thinking Mingus, Miles, Rahsaan Roland Kirk, and plenty others) insisted that categorization was limiting for both musicians and audiences, and that it was a way for record labels, outlets, and critics to control the music and reap the financial rewards. I have very little appreciation for the artists like Wynton Marsalis (a fine trumpeter, of course) who try to define the music along narrow lines: must use certain rhythms, certain instruments, certain melodic types, etc. What's becoming clear in this thing I'm writing is that the best artists are often those who are iconoclastic and use all the tools of music as means to their creative ends. The tools are not physical objects and therefore are much more flexible; they can be put to a large variety of uses, new ones can always be invented. What's happened at the end of the Christian Millenium is the spread of improvisation, the only hallmark tradition of jazz I can discern, throughout many genres of music. Improvisation is considered one of the fundamental abilities for most non-classical instrumentalists. So if we want to track jazz as we enter what most of us call the new millenium, we can't look exclusively at what Sam Goody's categorizes as jazz, or even at what "jazz" musicians categorize as jazz. We must realize that "it" can be heard all over. I welcome this trend. It represents, perhaps, a return to the elements of music; if a musician can just compose and play, regardless of pre-existing forms, that will create the best music. Of course, we're seeing a terrible trend towards conglomeration, which will both hinder and create new spaces for artists who are interested in using improvisation as a benchmark of their works. The hindrance will come from the aforementioned categorization along product lines, etc. But it's also true that even the giant labels in the 90s have been putting out genre-fusing, improvised albums that certainly are not slotted easily into a comfortable format, unless that format is called "eclectic". (My feeling about all these people who half-assedly play a dozen different styles is negative.) The future of jazz is as dim as its past.

 

Date:	20-Oct-1999 14:50:54
From:	Brent
	This certainly is a topic that brings out strong opinions in most people. Opinion being the key word, I'll proceed. One thing I've noticed when I read reviews of new records is that critics seem relentless about comparing a player's sound or ideas to those of the past. While this is an important reference for the reader, I believe that it has instilled in many artists and listeners the idea that advancement means that they must never, ever revisit previously explored territory. This quest for new-ness often seems to be more important than the quest for music or, more importantly, expression on the personal level. It seems reasonable that, within certain limits, if a person is expressing a universal emotion that there might be some similarity between the method of his (or her) attempt and that of an accurate predecessor. This does not, however, mean that imitation is acceptable to me. One of my favorite things about jazz is that it has the good fortune to include much good music that cannot easily be classified into other genres. This is a blessing to the jazz fan. From third stream to the hip-hop(ish) organ trio, much is expressed and one can always find a record under the canopy of jazz that suits his mood. I believe that jazz needs more people who love all of jazz and are strong individuals with much to say. People who are as likely to listen to Bix Beiderbecke as Greg Osby. The Blanton-Webster Band as the Mahavishnu Orchestra. The MJQ as well as John Zorn . . . I also want to clarify that I don't advocate open-minded acceptance to such a level that would produce a diluted swamp of music, but if it means something to you and you like to listen to it - then it is successful music. Every jazz record in every style that I have ever heard has taught me at least one valuable lesson. As a player, I am always excited and happy to be listening and playing and have never lost the love that brought me over to jazz - even as my technical understanding and proficiency grow daily. I beleive that the future of the music is about individuals. People who try to find the best way to express what they are FEELING. If a musician applies all of his or her time and will and ability towards this goal then he or she will not have to worry about helping the music to evolve or about sounding original. Since no two people are alike, this individuality will make each person a separate voice in the chorus of the jazz tradition. I find great inspiration in the work of Eric Dolphy. He did much to forward his own personal voice while always seeming to love jazz. Many others have taken this road, as well. Listen to everything. Listen to what you love again and again. What jazz does not seem to need is multi-party politics where everyone fights about what they like best. Sorry to ramble so long - Remember it's just what I think. I have enjoyed reading all the opinions on this topic and many others.

 

Date:	20-Feb-2000 22:01:07
From:	Sally
	I don't think of jazz as an abstraction. It is the voices of individuals and groups. As a young jazz musician finds her/his voice then they are able to contribute to the future of the music. Jazz will "evolve" along with the voices of those who develop as musicians/composers.

 

Date:	01-Apr-2000 00:33:06
From:	Paul
	I am not sure how "Jazz" will evolve in the next century. I know with the core of passionately committed listeners and performers that I have encountered and contacted, it is a very alive music form, both in its more historic/classical forms, and in its more modern forms. I however think that the term itself has become too, much too, broad. I do not find much connection with the more classical forms of jazz and their smoother, more eclectic, maybe even more eccentric children. Older jazz forms have an almost vaudevillian or even operatic drive that is very intense, with a very collective high energy level. They have an almost wavelike rythm even with out much bass that is very captivating. They have class and innocence. Based on some of the new "Jazz" I have observed on the internet, for which there is an audience or the music would not sell, class and innocence do not seem to have much value, at least to that audience. To me that is very sad. I am very encouraged by the Jazz historians passion for preserving, reissuing, and recreating the parts of the classical Jazz legacy that I love; the classical Jazz musicians that continue to perform and record; the new musicians, ensembles, bands, and orchestras that continue to build upon the classical Jazz legacy and deepen it. Of the newer bands, I like Harry Connick Jr.'s work (at least as much as I have listened to). I like the Jim Cullum Jazz Band, and their "Live From The Landing" radio show. I think Acid Jazz, and Fusion, much of New Age Jazz, and probably some of the smoother Jazz forms should actually be named something other than Jazz. I know that they are based on the same collective improvisational concept that the original parts of jazz were based upon, and I know that structurally, they meet the definition of jazz, but there is also a cultural context of music forms. I know that music is dynamic. I know that music composers have to keep looking for "something new" to even get heard. I know that when the musical ideas in a form get exhausted, composers move on to a new form, and that this also happens when the mood of an era radically changes. Yet to me the type of jazz I like is "happy music". It is polite, it is innocent,it has class, you can sing it throughout your day. To me there is a lot of value in "carrying your music with you in your heart". I like the idea of an America where people sang while they worked, and when they were through sang to entertain themselves, or to their loved ones of their love. Music was not the exclusive domain of professionals, but the common property of the people, and th common people, the middle class and the elite shared music styles that were common to all. I like the derivatives from pre-1950 Jazz roots up until about 1965. I love Red Hot Jazz, Chamber Jazz, Early Blues that are more Jazz than Blues, Big Band Jazz, Swing (but it has to really Swing, none of this de-natured smoothed out Swing-for a good example listen to the difference between the Black and White Lawrence Welk TV shows which featured good Big Band Swing, and the Color TV shows which went to a more smooth popular music format-the difference is that the character of the music is denatured, a copy). I also like boogie-woogie, ragtime, 19th century American music, and the classical European romantics. Like everyone else writing here, mine is only my opinion. But I only know what I like. I am not just a music preservationist. I have been rapidly expanding my exposure to all of the forms of classical jazz, and their equivalents. Although when blues are really blue, they are too blue for me. I don't like bass that much, or drums, or electric music. I have come to enjoy 1950's American Rock & Roll (which interestingly enough has enough of a swing to it that I have danced East Coast Swing to 1950's Rock & Roll!), but I didn't discover it until about 1985. I don't like music that is crude or raw. I guess I am just an optimist, that likes innocent happy romantic music, and believe in keeping a song in my heart! If everyone else gets as much out of their music as I do, then their music is, for them, a success!!!

 

Date:	25-Sep-2000 14:25:43
From:	Ian Torres (izzyt76@yahoo.com)
	People insist that jazz is dead becuase it possess a small following. The problems is not the music, the problem is society. The american society has grown increasingly less intelligent and patient over the last 30 years. people don't want to listen to music they want to socialize to music. Sucks but thats the way it is. As for all the people who wrote about going back to the roots, well i agree with my buddy Lyman who previuosly brought many great musicians today (you probably don't even know their names) who are right now pushing the envelope as bird did with bebop, trane in the 60's etc. You guys who complain the music needs to be more simple, you just need to work harder at developing the skills to listen. thats what makes the music fun to me. With out that there is no creativity and with out creativity there is no stimulation. Anyways i usually just like to play instead talk about music.

 

Date:	12-Jan-2001 10:13:33
From:	Mark Romano (zouktime@aol.com)
	As artists say when they're playing the music, they don't know which way it's going to go. The music will evolve, revolve, devolve. No one knows where's it's going. That's the fun of playing the music and listening to it. If you knew where it was going, there would be no improvisation form the fiery soul. The music's soul will determine where it will go. We humans cannot predict that eventuality. The music comes through the artists from the world soul and the spheres.

 

Date:	12-Jan-2001 10:14:03
From:	Mark Romano (zouktime@aol.com)
	As artists say when they're playing the music, they don't know which way it's going to go. The music will evolve, revolve, devolve. No one knows where's it's going. That's the fun of playing the music and listening to it. If you knew where it was going, there would be no improvisation from the fiery soul. The music's soul will determine where it will go. We humans cannot predict that eventuality. The music comes through the artists from the world soul and the spheres.

 

Date:	28-Jan-2001 22:14:03
From:	Matt (zossz@operamail.com)
	Very interesting thread here.... I'd like to voice some thoughts that came while rereading those above. Jazz dead?.. maybe in it's historical definition, but then once something is recorded in history it can no longer exist outside of the definition recorded. definition = boundary The boundaries we set up when we define what we are doing instead of letting it live free and unchanged by those restrictions are the cause of any death of a particular form. When you set up a boundary you automatically establish the point at which the thing you are defining can not continue to grow. I know that discussion and definition are, in large part, how we as humans interact. I urge you all to let other forms of communication take a greater hold on your daily lives. Let the music speak for itself and let the historians hash out the definitions once the movements have come and gone. No sense in trying to guess the future as we can only live in the now.

 

Date:	14-Feb-2001 15:01:39
From:	Mark Romano (zouktime@aolcom)
	Monk said " i don't where it's going. maybe it's going to hell. you can't make anything go anywhere. i just happens".

 

Date:	29-Mar-2001 05:36:43
From:	amy piller
	no offece but crap site i dont like it its 2 borin

 

Date:	29-Apr-2001 17:31:02
From:	Bob
	Amy, have you checked out the Disneyland site? I hear it's awesome!! Bye-bye.

 

Date:	17-May-2001 19:47:30
From:	Mark Hughes
	Just a quick idea. I think the only real possibilty of an effective jazz revival is through the concert hall and orchestaration. It's only in these circumstances that melody and standards will really come back to life for modern audiences. I think another possible saviour is film. It's amazing how much movies rely on jazz to compliment a situation which isnt action. Think about it; comedy, sex, romance, noir; they're all played off to Jazz. These'll keep the audience listening. Ladies and gentleman; there's no way jazz will die. In fact it's exciting because soon there'll have to be a musical revolution. This modern shit's got to sink. We'll all be waving our Evans LP's when it happens.

 

Date:	17-Aug-2001 16:57:18
From:	Erik Lund (jazz_jrummer@hotmail.com)
	what "modern shit" are you speaking of? MTV-type "modern"? or something else?