Has jazz run its course?

[Rcartes]

Finding I'm almost completely out of sympathy with pretty much everything that's happening in jazz now (apart from a few shining lights like the work of Keith Jarrett), I'm beginning to wonder whether jazz development has run its course and has become, well, pretty pointless.

I've been thinking this for some time, but this line of thought was really brought to a head by the Joe Lovano concert at the Barbican a few months back. I'm an admirer of Lovano, and even more so of Jack DeJohnette, that rare thing a truly musical drummer. But the concert was ruined for me by some really awful thrashing around by DeJohnette. The other musicians weren't up to much that night, and generally the experience was a total pain in the ear.

Anyway, here's my personal take on it. Jazz has gone through what for classical music was a five-century (give or take the odd century) journey, in less than 50 years. From, say, Freddie Keppard to early Coltrane before he forgot how to end solos, jazz went through a phenomenal development process. But, starting with the later Coltrane, I have to wonder where it's going; jazz rock/fusion was a wholly unnecessary diversion, "free jazz" likewise, and everything else seems just to be a reframing of what went before: if I had a quid for every Coltrane copyist I've had to endure, I'd be very well off indeed.

So where is jazz going, if anywhere? In this, I suppose it mirrors where classical is also (not) going, and visual art likewise, as witness the paeans of praise heaped on the sh1te of Tracey Emin's latest exhibition - about which (the horror! the horror!) I find I'm on the same side as ... the Daily Mail. Oh dear.

All very depressing; am I just the 21st century equivalent of a mouldy figge? That's rather a dismal prospect, but I find I'm increasingly drawn back to what for me was the real golden era of jazz, from, say, Bix Beiderbecke to Clifford Brown. Perhaps I should just try to get out more....

[Beef Oven!]

Finding I'm almost completely out of sympathy with pretty much everything that's happening in jazz now (apart from a few shining lights like the work of Keith Jarrett), I'm beginning to wonder whether jazz development has run its course and has become, well, pretty pointless.

I've been thinking this for some time, but this line of thought was really brought to a head by the Joe Lovano concert at the Barbican a few months back. I'm an admirer of Lovano, and even more so of Jack DeJohnette, that rare thing a truly musical drummer. But the concert was ruined for me by some really awful thrashing around by DeJohnette. The other musicians weren't up to much that night, and generally the experience was a total pain in the ear.

Anyway, here's my personal take on it. Jazz has gone through what for classical music was a five-century (give or take the odd century) journey, in less than 50 years. From, say, Freddie Keppard to early Coltrane before he forgot how to end solos, jazz went through a phenomenal development process. But, starting with the later Coltrane, I have to wonder where it's going; jazz rock/fusion was a wholly unnecessary diversion, "free jazz" likewise, and everything else seems just to be a reframing of what went before: if I had a quid for every Coltrane copyist I've had to endure, I'd be very well off indeed.

So where is jazz going, if anywhere? In this, I suppose it mirrors where classical is also (not) going, and visual art likewise, as witness the paeans of praise heaped on the sh1te of Tracey Emin's latest exhibition - about which (the horror! the horror!) I find I'm on the same side as ... the Daily Mail. Oh dear.

All very depressing; am I just the 21st century equivalent of a mouldy figge? That's rather a dismal prospect, but I find I'm increasingly drawn back to what for me was the real golden era of jazz, from, say, Bix Beiderbecke to Clifford Brown. Perhaps I should just try to get out more....

Two questions.

Could Messrs DeJohnette & Lovano have just had an off-day?

Is the question not 'where jazz is', rather than where it's going?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Jazz is "going" wherever its practitioners take it, and some listeners enjoy the journey. If other listeners don't want to follow those "paths", there's plenty of other stuff to listen to, instead. Is there a problem?

[Rcartes]

Two questions.

Could Messrs DeJohnette & Lovano have just had an off-day?

Is the question not 'where jazz is', rather than where it's going?

Well, they could have had an off-day, but I felt it was more than that. On the other hand a very old friend of mine who was also there, enjoyed it.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

'course' is a linear [as in bureuacratic programme] or constraint [as in river] conceptual metaphor that imho does not fit art and certainly not jazz

'course' as a metaphor is often misleadingly applied to evolution [viz the howlers in this regard by Prof Cox on the box]

Stephen Jay Gould offered a very large and complex tree as a metaphor for evolution; which may be extended by the thought that such trees often exist in colonies with interlocking and shared root systems .... the colony as such will outlive any individual member ....

i confidently predict the jazz colony has an intergalactic future if humanity does ... jazz will, as all else, end when the great silence arrives ....

the question also has a reflexive turn no?

i find that jazz is not immune to our present disenchanted and anomic circumstance in which any meaning and any value struggle for enduring presence and relevance ...

of one thing i feel fairly sure .... 'the new' has had its day in art

and for another Ms Ermin's line often recalls Modigliani's [recalls not imitates]

but whence shall resurgence come? alas a mystery to me ....

i find my old ears now hear Louis Armstrong with a new delight

[Rcartes]

Jazz is "going" wherever its practitioners take it, and some listeners enjoy the journey. If other listeners don't want to follow those "paths", there's plenty of other stuff to listen to, instead. Is there a problem?

Well, I think there really is a problem, precisely because, although the practitioners may be taking it on a journey, I don't think they're going anywhere, just repeating what's gone before with (very) minor variation. There's no development, that's the point I'm trying to make, which compares, say, with the move from collective New Orleans to individual solo-based jazz or from that to swing or from swing to bebop.

[Rcartes]

'course' is a linear [as in bureuacratic programme] or constraint [as in river] conceptual metaphor that imho does not fit art and certainly not jazz

'course' as a metaphor is often misleadingly applied to evolution [viz the howlers in this regard by Prof Cox on the box]

Stephen Jay Gould offered a very large and complex tree as a metaphor for evolution; which may be extended by the thought that such trees often exist in colonies with interlocking and shared root systems .... the colony as such will outlive any individual member ....

i confidently predict the jazz colony has an intergalactic future if humanity does ... jazz will, as all else, end when the great silence arrives ....

the question also has a reflexive turn no?

i find that jazz is not immune to our present disenchanted and anomic circumstance in which any meaning and any value struggle for enduring presence and relevance ...

of one thing i feel fairly sure .... 'the new' has had its day in art

and for another Ms Ermin's line often recalls Modigliani's [recalls not imitates]

but whence shall resurgence come? alas a mystery to me ....

i find my old ears now hear Louis Armstrong with a new delight

Wow, them's deep waters, Calum! Agree with you about Armstrong, though I do of course prefer his late 20s/early 30s work. I don't know how many times I've heard it, but this track never fails to move and thrill at the same time:

[Beef Oven!]

Well, they could have had an off-day, but I felt it was more than that. On the other hand a very old friend of mine who was also there, enjoyed it.

Well there you go!

And by the way, your thread has caused me to pause the CPE and give this a spin............bought it in the US in the week of its release IIRC

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Monk's laconic response to the (dumb) interview question, "Where is jazz going?", was, "To hell in a handcart? Who knows? Jazz goes where it wants to go".

My take...torrents of hate= late Trane etc = great.

BN.

Agree with Calum, the old is the new new.

[MrGongGong]

I guess it all depends on what you mean by "Jazz" (hides behind sofa !)

[Beef Oven!]

I guess it all depends on what you mean by "Jazz" (hides behind sofa !)

What do you mean by 'sofa'?

And aren't you giving the game away concerning your privileged background by using the 'U' 'sofa', rather than the 'non-U' settee or couch?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Well, I think there really is a problem, precisely because, although the practitioners may be taking it on a journey, I don't think they're going anywhere, just repeating what's gone before with (very) minor variation. There's no development, that's the point I'm trying to make, which compares, say, with the move from collective New Orleans to individual solo-based jazz or from that to swing or from swing to bebop.

So, are you saying that this "problem" is yours (rather than the Musics')? Sounds a smart ass comment, but it's not meant to be - you have said that Jazz "mirrors where classical is also (not) going, and visual art likewise"; but the vitality of so much "contemporary Classical"/"Art" Music is as vigorous as it has ever been, with Musicians such as Aaron Cassidy, James Saunders, Evan Johnson, Tim McCormack, Joanna Baille, Michael Maierhof, Richard Glover (just to name some people born since 1970) all producing new sounds in styles very different from each other. If Jazz does, in its own terms, "mirror" these developments, then it's in a very healthy state indeed - it's just going in destinations that you don't like the sound of? (Again genuine questions, based also on your comment to BeefO that your "very old friend" enjoyed the Barbican concert that you were so disappointed by. Not to even contemplate any suggestion of figges, mouldy or otherwise! )

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Jazz is "going" wherever its practitioners take it, and some listeners enjoy the journey. If other listeners don't want to follow those "paths", there's plenty of other stuff to listen to, instead. Is there a problem?

There may or may not be a problem, but it does seem to be a topic worth discussing. The same could be said of "classical" music as we know it. Some see ways forward, but others might argue that it too has run its course and is now largely recycling itself.

[Rcartes]

So, are you saying that this "problem" is yours (rather than the Musics')? Sounds a smart ass comment, but it's not meant to be - you have said that Jazz "mirrors where classical is also (not) going, and visual art likewise"; but the vitality of so much "contemporary Classical"/"Art" Music is as vigorous as it has ever been, with Musicians such as Aaron Cassidy, James Saunders, Evan Johnson, Tim McCormack, Joanna Baille, Michael Maierhof, Richard Glover (just to name some people born since 1970) all producing new sounds in styles very different from each other. If Jazz does, in its own terms, "mirror" these developments, then it's in a very healthy state indeed - it's just going in destinations that you don't like the sound of? (Again genuine questions, based also on your comment to BeefO that your "very old friend" enjoyed the Barbican concert that you were so disappointed by. Not to even contemplate any suggestion of figges, mouldy or otherwise! )

A fair question, and I don't really know how to answer it best. Of course what I've said is my view rather than some kind of objective statement, it couldn't be otherwise, so to an extent the problem is mine, I suppose. But pretty well everything else here would fit in the category of personal views, wouldn't it?

Let me put it another way: how would you say jazz had developed, if at all, since, say, the 1960s?

I must confess to never having heard of any of Aaron Cassidy, James Saunders, Evan Johnson, Tim McCormack, Joanna Baille, Michael Maierhof or Richard Glover. A quick look shows that Cassidy has just edited a book entitled Noise In And As Music, which doesn't immediately grab me as one to look out for (rather facetiously, I wonder if he includes the plague of concert coughers who seem to be getting noisier and less concerned at the irritation they cause).

[Old Grumpy]

Perhaps I should just try to get out more....

Do you get to many gigs, or is your disillusionment primarily based on recorded and/or broadcast material? There is a certain something to a live gig, I find. I do admit that from time to time however I enjoy the CD I have gone home with more than the gig.

OG