Is any one listening?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

to jazz on R3?

do we feel that it is graced by masterful presentation?

selected with informed and authoritative editorial judgement?

analysed and discussed with intellectual and musical rigour?

reflects the contemporary scene in Europe, Latin America, Asia and USA?


would it make a difference if it did all of the above?

just thought i'd ask before i start to smell funny .....

[charles t]

have at least a couple-hundred of Jon3 concerts through the years, Calum.

A rigorous Yes to your points 1-3.

Latin America, Asia? Can't say, McGee...

[Serial_Apologist]

I have few complaints these days. However, I would like it if at least one programme per week were to be devoted to a British band or personality, as regularly happened back in the Charles Fox/Peter Clayton era, especially under Peter Outzima.

The current burgeoning generation is being largely neglected, except for when R3 has a jazz musician represented in its New Generation category - which it doesn't at present. George Crowley, who hosts jazz every Monday at the Oxford in Kentish Town, is a major saxophonist, imv, but how many British listeners have heard of him?

I don't have particular preferences as to how this should be done: a band session (or two-in-one, as once happened), or an interview with a personality such as Seb Rochford, giving some sort of career profiloe illustrated with recordings, input from associates such as Pete Wareham.

[Alyn_Shipton]

S-A In the last nearly 3 years since I took over JRR the number of requests for music by the young generation of British bands has dramatically increased - so we have played tracks recently by Quadraceratops, Laura Jurd, Paul Edis, Vasilis Xenopoulos, Zoe Schwarz, Sid Peacock, Philip Clouts, Maciek Pysz, Nigel Price...so I'd say in answer to Calum's question, people are listening, and also beginning to ask regularly for jazz by artists they can hear playing now and not just the earlier repertoire. Couldn't possibly comment on some of Calum's other questions...

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

say no more Alyn

my general impression was that things were on the up; with the provisos that not enough a] young talent is highlighted [please do not mention the NGA scheme to me, irredeemably elitist], b] happenings in the regions and the gig scene nationwide is a mystery on R3 and c] the scene in places like Brooklyn and California or Japan to name a few

and with due respect to noted persons of sterling service we are still in something of an unvarying groove

when my daughter was 14 a jazz group from Leicester gave a workshop at her school and created some excitement for the pupils - if this now goes on how do we hear about such things?

the Guildhall Jazz Festival starts on the 21st wil we hear about it or performances from it?
http://www.gsmd.ac.uk/about_the_scho...ulleevents_pi1[showUid]=4013

there must be a 1000 maverick teenagers out there waiting to start a life long romance with the ineffably anarchic art of jazz eh ....

[Old Grumpy]

Must admit I usually listen to the first five minutes of Jazz on 3 and then turn it off. I do find most of the stuff unlistenable to...



... but then that's what you might expect!

OG

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Must admit I usually listen to the first five minutes of Jazz on 3 and then turn it off. I do find most of the stuff unlistenable to...



... but then that's what you might expect!

OG

Changing patterns of consumption (I now listen largely to net stations and the excellent France Musique, classical and jazz), aging demographics - do 'young people' request via radio anymore, there does seem to be an awful lot of 60 plus requests on JRR. And most of ' em awful.

As for " analysis", highly variable. Julian Joseph seems to have a new lease of life and is now sharp and to the point, thoughtful and not everything is "amazing". Are things worse? I played back an old tape of Stacy Kent overviewing Oliver Nelson and it sounded as if she was just (stiffly) reading out the liner notes for the very first time, so beware the rose tinted. Agree about Fox and Clayton (and Humph). Golden age.

BN.

BTW, My sixteen part series, "The banjo revolution in jazz - 1900 to JRR" is available on French local radio.

[Ian Thumwood]

Oddly, the comments made by Alyn and SA reflect a conversation I had with a friend of mine before the Ravi Coltrane gig in Southampton last Friday and stemmed from the fact that my friend had commented on the fact that he could no longer keep track of the new and unfamiliar names arriving in the current jazz scene. My friend is in his late seventies and I suppose his taste would span from mainstream through to contemporary styles of jazz. He is a massive fan of ECM, for example. He had recently bought a copy of "Jazzwise" for the first time and was astounded by the number of new albums issued by people he had never heard of , especially British musicians. At the same time, there was a review of Kenny Wheeler's last album which he felt was given scant consideration in perspective with younger and unestablished players, especially as he considered Wheeler to have been a towering giant in jazz. The comment he made was interesting insofar that he said he had no interest in these younger players who were being lauded by critics before they had produced a body of work upon which their merits could be assessed.

I thought that this was a very honest appraisal and I think lies at the heart of the issue raised by SA. The technical ability of these younger players is without question but I wonder just how many of people contributing here genuinely believe these recordings by younger British talent will stand the test of time. Growing up listening to jazz in the 1980s', I have a perception that the "Golden Era" of British jazz was probably from the late 60' until the early 90's. I'm not too fussed by many of the later players who I like but can't honestly say I love. The contemporary British scene seems to try hard to shock or be different and a lot of the music may be technically superior to that played by the older generations. To my ears, the current crop of Brits are producing jazz that doesn't have the balls of the better jazz being produced elsewhere and lacks the integrity of say the host of musicians from Chicago who are playing what I would consider to be the "truth." For me, great British jazz musicians include Surman, Holland, Taylor, etc and the most recent arrivals to have impressed me have been Soweto Kinch and Gwilym Simcock who are less of a departure from the traditional concept of what jazz should sound like. I also thought Empirical sounded like an honest band producing music that had pride in performing music that was unashamedly jazz. Come the 2000's, I became put off by the odd-names of groups like "Polar Bear" or Phrenosis or Led Bib. The host of names listed by Alyn are largely unfamiliar and I don't intend to check out " Quadracerotops" either. The only familiar name was Laura Jurd whose music is informed by Dave Douglas but who needs a copy-cat when the original is still in his prime? IT's great that more women are involved in jazz but SA's favourite alto player Trish Clowes strikes me as being seriously-overpraised in an era whilst players like Rob Brown, Aram Shelton, Mars Williams, Logan Richardson, Matana Roberts, etc seem so under the radar let alone more familiar names like Steve Coleman, Greg Osby, David Binney, Kenny Garrett, Steve Lehman who are or have clearly shaped the alto in the last 10-20 years.

As a jazz fan, I feel that I should be supporting these younger, British players especially as I think they have regularly and consistently been bridging the gap in ability between the UK and the States regarding the jazz mainstream. However, there is only so much time available to listen to records / go to gigs and I'm not convinced that the UK is where you would turn your attention to especially as so many European musicians seem almost ashamed to call their music jazz. For me, the further you get away from the jazz orthodox, the more your dilute the music so the likes of Empirical would get a tick in the right box and I regret that the more Euro-centric stuff goes in the box of worthy jazz but not representative of the music that I consider "essential listening." I feel a bit guilty writing this yet I wonder just how representative SA is of most British jazz fans. I'm all for other nationalities making a splash in jazz whether we are talking about Migeul Zenon or John Escreet but I think the current British scene includes too many automatons and maybe the scene is a little disrespectful of the true merits of jazz. I expect to be shot down in flames for saying this and am sure that there will be a barrage of comments suggesting musicians in the UK scene who are transforming the music. However, it is difficult to get interested even if I agree with Calum's suggestion that there is a lot of interesting jazz being played in other cities around the States. In summary, a too heavy reliance on the current British scene would be a turn off just as it would have been prior to the late 1960's. The British scene currently seems caught between whimsy and gimmick.

[Serial_Apologist]

S-A In the last nearly 3 years since I took over JRR the number of requests for music by the young generation of British bands has dramatically increased - so we have played tracks recently by Quadraceratops, Laura Jurd, Paul Edis, Vasilis Xenopoulos, Zoe Schwarz, Sid Peacock, Philip Clouts, Maciek Pysz, Nigel Price...so I'd say in answer to Calum's question, people are listening, and also beginning to ask regularly for jazz by artists they can hear playing now and not just the earlier repertoire. Couldn't possibly comment on some of Calum's other questions...

Agreed Alyn, but you yourself obviously cannot be expected to cover the young British recorded jazz with informativeness on JRR, in order to compensate for lack of detail being offered by other programmes. One wonders where requesters are getting the info that motivates them to make requests, unless it's from publications, which admittedly I mostly don't go in for these days: liner notes, where they exist, regardless of label, aren't usually very informative nowadays, and the same goes for websites.

[Serial_Apologist]

Oddly, the comments made by Alyn and SA reflect a conversation I had with a friend of mine before the Ravi Coltrane gig in Southampton last Friday and stemmed from the fact that my friend had commented on the fact that he could no longer keep track of the new and unfamiliar names arriving in the current jazz scene. My friend is in his late seventies and I suppose his taste would span from mainstream through to contemporary styles of jazz. He is a massive fan of ECM, for example. He had recently bought a copy of "Jazzwise" for the first time and was astounded by the number of new albums issued by people he had never heard of , especially British musicians. At the same time, there was a review of Kenny Wheeler's last album which he felt was given scant consideration in perspective with younger and unestablished players, especially as he considered Wheeler to have been a towering giant in jazz. The comment he made was interesting insofar that he said he had no interest in these younger players who were being lauded by critics before they had produced a body of work upon which their merits could be assessed.

I thought that this was a very honest appraisal and I think lies at the heart of the issue raised by SA. The technical ability of these younger players is without question but I wonder just how many of people contributing here genuinely believe these recordings by younger British talent will stand the test of time. Growing up listening to jazz in the 1980s', I have a perception that the "Golden Era" of British jazz was probably from the late 60' until the early 90's. I'm not too fussed by many of the later players who I like but can't honestly say I love. The contemporary British scene seems to try hard to shock or be different and a lot of the music may be technically superior to that played by the older generations. To my ears, the current crop of Brits are producing jazz that doesn't have the balls of the better jazz being produced elsewhere and lacks the integrity of say the host of musicians from Chicago who are playing what I would consider to be the "truth." For me, great British jazz musicians include Surman, Holland, Taylor, etc and the most recent arrivals to have impressed me have been Soweto Kinch and Gwilym Simcock who are less of a departure from the traditional concept of what jazz should sound like. I also thought Empirical sounded like an honest band producing music that had pride in performing music that was unashamedly jazz. Come the 2000's, I became put off by the odd-names of groups like "Polar Bear" or Phrenosis or Led Bib. The host of names listed by Alyn are largely unfamiliar and I don't intend to check out " Quadracerotops" either. The only familiar name was Laura Jurd whose music is informed by Dave Douglas but who needs a copy-cat when the original is still in his prime? IT's great that more women are involved in jazz but SA's favourite alto player Trish Clowes strikes me as being seriously-overpraised in an era whilst players like Rob Brown, Aram Shelton, Mars Williams, Logan Richardson, Matana Roberts, etc seem so under the radar let alone more familiar names like Steve Coleman, Greg Osby, David Binney, Kenny Garrett, Steve Lehman who are or have clearly shaped the alto in the last 10-20 years.

As a jazz fan, I feel that I should be supporting these younger, British players especially as I think they have regularly and consistently been bridging the gap in ability between the UK and the States regarding the jazz mainstream. However, there is only so much time available to listen to records / go to gigs and I'm not convinced that the UK is where you would turn your attention to especially as so many European musicians seem almost ashamed to call their music jazz. For me, the further you get away from the jazz orthodox, the more your dilute the music so the likes of Empirical would get a tick in the right box and I regret that the more Euro-centric stuff goes in the box of worthy jazz but not representative of the music that I consider "essential listening." I feel a bit guilty writing this yet I wonder just how representative SA is of most British jazz fans. I'm all for other nationalities making a splash in jazz whether we are talking about Migeul Zenon or John Escreet but I think the current British scene includes too many automatons and maybe the scene is a little disrespectful of the true merits of jazz. I expect to be shot down in flames for saying this and am sure that there will be a barrage of comments suggesting musicians in the UK scene who are transforming the music. However, it is difficult to get interested even if I agree with Calum's suggestion that there is a lot of interesting jazz being played in other cities around the States. In summary, a too heavy reliance on the current British scene would be a turn off just as it would have been prior to the late 1960's. The British scene currently seems caught between whimsy and gimmick.

I'll only answer by saying that Trish Clowes plays tenor and sop, not alto; that while it's true that Gwylym Simcock hasn't evidenced as much stretching of the envelope as his abilities (and Chick Corea's championing) might have suggested, Soweto Kinch has continued in the post-Jazz Warriors vein of tying up with black British urban musics, (I'd love to see a collaboration with Pat Thomas) and I would not consider him as in any way as being "inside the box" conventions-wise. As for names, what could have been more off-putting than Weather Report? Give Quadracerotops a chance - I was pretty impressed with the one live performance I went to - as I would recommend for the rest of our youngsters. Or would you prefer it if younger generation musicians doing something different were ignored in preference for those you see as more in hoc to the American product? If so, that's what was expected of the Ronnie Scott generation, and why the Surmans etc had to break away - nothing to do with your misguided pan-American sympathies expressed in terms of "the truth", when jazz has long been the one universal means of musical expression befitting multiculturalist aspirations and democratics put artistically into practice.

[Ian Thumwood]

There weren't many young people at the Ravi Coltrane gig last week. Same goes for the John Surman weekend last month when the Southampton Youth Jazz orchestra themselves represented the younger demographic. The previous night's gig by Surman's Quartet was about 1/3 full.

I am sure that the interest for younger bands is generated by publications like "Jazzwise." There seems less "word of mouth" notice down here these days. The Internet is very useful for information too.

There was an thread about two years ago on All about Jazz about collecting records by new artists with some people liking to hear new talent whereas the reviewer John Kelman made an observation about the uneven nature of debut offerings . I think he had a point about jazz artists being in it for the long haul. The audience is a bit sceptical of musicians arriving on the scene fully formed and tend to prefer hearing artists when they have more maturity. Interesting to compare and contrast with the Classic Blue Note records made by fully formed musicians who were generally in their early / mid twenties at the time. do jazz musicians take longer to develop these days, perhaps?

[Serial_Apologist]

I think he had a point about jazz artists being in it for the long haul.

Which is why one shouldn't overload any front-ended expectations of them, just be glad it's jazz not pop or classical they've put their careers into.

[Ian Thumwood]

I'll only answer by saying that Trish Clowes plays tenor and sop, not alto; that while it's true that Gwylym Simcock hasn't evidenced as much stretching of the envelope as his abilities (and Chick Corea's championing) might have suggested, Soweto Kinch has continued in the post-Jazz Warriors vein of tying up with black British urban musics, (I'd love to see a collaboration with Pat Thomas) and I would not consider him as in any way as being "inside the box" conventions-wise. As for names, what could have been more off-putting than Weather Report? Give Quadracerotops a chance - I was pretty impressed with the one live performance I went to - as I would recommend for the rest of our youngsters. Or would you prefer it if younger generation musicians doing something different were ignored in preference for those you see as more in hoc to the American product? If so, that's what was expected of the Ronnie Scott generation, and why the Surmans etc had to break away - nothing to do with your misguided pan-American sympathies expressed in terms of "the truth", when jazz has long been the one universal means of musical expression befitting multiculturalist aspirations and democratics put artistically into practice.

I can't see how you compare the jazz scene of the late 60's with what is being produced in 2015. From a wider perspective, I think jazz has probably never been in ruder health but it's fair to say that there is probably more "ordinary" stuff being produced today that ever before. It is jazz for the I-pod generation - pretty disposable and ready for the "next big thing."

Part of the reason that I stopped subscribing to Jazzwise was that I felt I could no longer believe a lot of the hype. There seems to be too much attention given to young musicians who burn brightly before ending up playing in the pits for "Les Mis." I just don't buy the b/s peddled by some critics that would have the current London-centric scene dominated by 20-somethings. More often than not, the media attention is not really merited and the more interesting players perhaps over-looked by more photogenic musicians . Only a European scene so void of genuine originality would give credence a something like Neil Cowley's trio. Absolute sh/te.

I don't think my opinions have "Pan-American sympathies" and I have praised artists from other countries frequently on this board. There was a thread about Satako Fujji the other week for example. My point is that the current Brit scene seems over-praised and lacks edge. I'm not a fan of his Rapping but at least Kinch sounds like a jazz musician. My issue is that some groups seem almost in denial that they are in jazz whereas other groups just seem too polite. In my opinion, a lot of the current UK stuff is depressingly bland even though I would not lay that accusation at all UK groups.

[Serial_Apologist]

I can't see how you compare the jazz scene of the late 60's with what is being produced in 2015. From a wider perspective, I think jazz has probably never been in ruder health but it's fair to say that there is probably more "ordinary" stuff being produced today that ever before. It is jazz for the I-pod generation - pretty disposable and ready for the "next big thing."

Part of the reason that I stopped subscribing to Jazzwise was that I felt I could no longer believe a lot of the hype. There seems to be too much attention given to young musicians who burn brightly before ending up playing in the pits for "Les Mis." I just don't buy the b/s peddled by some critics that would have the current London-centric scene dominated by 20-somethings. More often than not, the media attention is not really merited and the more interesting players perhaps over-looked by more photogenic musicians . Only a European scene so void of genuine originality would give credence a something like Neil Cowley's trio. Absolute sh/te.

I don't think my opinions have "Pan-American sympathies" and I have praised artists from other countries frequently on this board. There was a thread about Satako Fujji the other week for example. My point is that the current Brit scene seems over-praised and lacks edge. I'm not a fan of his Rapping but at least Kinch sounds like a jazz musician. My issue is that some groups seem almost in denial that they are in jazz whereas other groups just seem too polite. In my opinion, a lot of the current UK stuff is depressingly bland even though I would not lay that accusation at all UK groups.

You're right to adduce my comparing today with the 1960s - as in the latter period the younger generation is breaking out of the retrenchment of the 1980s revival. There may be an argument that too many recordings are being made or released, but that has to do with impinging market desiderata which as a good progressive you rightly deplore, I imagine. Had the quantity of stuff from the 1960s subsequently released been issued in its time I wonder if you might have felt the same about it as you do today's stuff. If you take your own words seriously it will take time for the new voices to mature. Your choice of the dreadful Neil Cowley Trio, which to jazz is what Manfred Mann was in the '60s, to exemplify your case against young Brit jazz, is disingenuous.

[Ian Thumwood]

SA

The director of the Turner Sims often speaks to me from time to time and I recall having a conversation with him regarding one of his expeditions to find potential artists to book for this venue. On one particular occasion he ended up at a jazz festival in Chicago and he told me that he was staggered by the richness of the jazz scene in that country and the appetite the audience had for more "outside" styles of jazz. This is hardly surprising as the AACM itself has become an institution or tradition and the taste for creative music is hardwire in that city's DNA. A comparison was made as to how vibrant that scene was with 100's of bands playing.

I think jazz can embrace a wide range of styles from King Oliver through to AACM and beyond. The more the music departs from this for a "European" style, I strongly feel that it looses it's edge even though there are musicians who come from a Classical approach that I can admire. There is an interesting development in jazz that I think is seeing a reaction towards trying to be "different" yet still remaining creative.

I'm not sure I buy the idea of the 1980's being entrenched as the music probably evolved more in the 1980's than since the mid-sixties with so many established players like Lovano, Frisell, Steve Coleman & M-Base, Geri Allen, etc emerging on the scene as well as labels like ECM reaching their zenith. On top of that, there were also a lot of creative artists tied up with the Down Town Scene as well as the likes of Henry Threadgill cementing their reputations. The jazz scene became far richer at that time.

The big problem with the 1980's was that the press hijacked jazz and heaped praise on some pretty ordinary talent which I think the UK scene still suffers from today. I'd rather discover someone myuself than by readinh a lot of publicity in a magazine like "Jazzwise." It is good that younger musicians are coming through even though the music being produced does seem to lack an edge to my ears. It trying to be "different", the music often sounds whimsical . There seems to be a lack of ability to build on a tradition to produce genuine jazz originals like Jason Moran, Vijay Iyer, Ambrose Akinmusire and whilst I applaud someone like Jurd or Clowes ambition, I don't find the results having the edge so evident in those musicians I consider to be the more rewarding players of today.