Originally posted by Ian Thumwood
View Post
Seems like a "jazz police" kind of response.
I am pretty shocked to learn that Alan Barnes in 60 because I always thought he was one of the young talents emerge in the 1980s - I think with Tommy Chase.
I have heard him do some quite interesting stuff with another under-rated player, Tony Kofi, which is good but the performances of music recorded in 1959 really emphasizes for me the fact that anything of this ilk really falls in to the Mainstream category rather likes players from the States such as Scott Hamilton or Harry Allen. It is difficult to fault but it always begs the question in my mind who is this music for? We are now in the last throes of a situation with a generation of fans who are perhaps looking at jazz from the point of view of nostalgia as opposed to a creative process which is still capable of existing in all styles of jazz. I remember a festival promoter from (I think) Belgium once explaining to me in about 2002 that they could see a time when a lot of jazz created between 1920s and 70s no longer had a bearing upon the audience.
I find that the judgement of mainstream jazz is probably more subjective and open to uninformed criticism and prejudice than any other form of jazz. It was nicely summed up by the stance taken by the ridiculous Terry Cooper (late of this board) who would dish out vitriol on player like Alan Barnes and Simon Spillett whilst lauding the likes of Steve Fishwick who ploughed a similar furrow. By it's very nature this kind of music is not going to produce innovators and it only rarely comes up with musicians who can re-cast the Mainstream in a new concept such as the clarinettist Anat Cohen or the pianists Bill Charlap and , to a lesser degree, Gerald Clayton. I have some admiration for these kinds of players whilst keeping in the back of my mind the nagging doubt that the audience for this kind of jazz must be diminishing. However, whenever I have gone to "mainstream" gigs the halls have been fully booked even if the demography of the audience usually means I am often the youngest person there!
The whole concept of "old fashioned" is decidedly slippery territory. The Free jazz and Jazz-rock of the late 60s and early 70s is now 50 years old itself and had those musicians been playing the music of 50 years prior to that they would be performing ODJB -style Dixieland. There is little in jazz that has dated as poorly as Fusion or Jazz Rock (maybe some of the Hip-hop musings from early 90s or early 2000's Nu Jazz) and I would reiterate that I still think that poor quality avant garde jazz sucks like nothing else. I would also add that I find the idea of Charlie Parker as being "Modern Jazz" pretty ludicrous these days and certainly the differences between jazz produced in 1929 and 1959 no longer seem quite so pronounced. Parker is as much of a historical figure in 2019 as Freddie Keppard.
In my opinion, fair play to the likes of Barnes' finding something to say in this idiom but I think the results need to be good / original /interesting to stand out above the best jazz being recorded in the 2010's. I think the issue is whether the music such musicians are producing stands up to similar music in the style. I would also have to add that the Birchall track sounded no less "old fashioned" and even listening to an earlier JD Allen trio recording of blues material I would have to say that the ghost of Coltrane's "Crescent" hangs over this recording even though the newest record and "Radio Flyer" are far more outside and interesting.
I can appreciate why there are those who love Barnes and others see him as an irrelevance but British jazz has always had a niche for this kind of music making which is slightly in reverence of American jazz as opposed to looking at what it might offer and running with the baton. I do not feel that it is reasonable to discard all musicians offering this approach and it is a sad world that cannot embrace the full gamut of a music that has a recorded history which now exceeds 100 years. However, I think it probably says a lot more about the jazz audience and why Bluesnik's comment to Tina May is probably what a lot of other fans think - especially those whose experience is generally limited to listening to records as opposed to live gigs as was the case with TC. Funny to see the "Cooperisms" now manifesting themselves in SA's posts!
I am pretty shocked to learn that Alan Barnes in 60 because I always thought he was one of the young talents emerge in the 1980s - I think with Tommy Chase.
I have heard him do some quite interesting stuff with another under-rated player, Tony Kofi, which is good but the performances of music recorded in 1959 really emphasizes for me the fact that anything of this ilk really falls in to the Mainstream category rather likes players from the States such as Scott Hamilton or Harry Allen. It is difficult to fault but it always begs the question in my mind who is this music for? We are now in the last throes of a situation with a generation of fans who are perhaps looking at jazz from the point of view of nostalgia as opposed to a creative process which is still capable of existing in all styles of jazz. I remember a festival promoter from (I think) Belgium once explaining to me in about 2002 that they could see a time when a lot of jazz created between 1920s and 70s no longer had a bearing upon the audience.
I find that the judgement of mainstream jazz is probably more subjective and open to uninformed criticism and prejudice than any other form of jazz. It was nicely summed up by the stance taken by the ridiculous Terry Cooper (late of this board) who would dish out vitriol on player like Alan Barnes and Simon Spillett whilst lauding the likes of Steve Fishwick who ploughed a similar furrow. By it's very nature this kind of music is not going to produce innovators and it only rarely comes up with musicians who can re-cast the Mainstream in a new concept such as the clarinettist Anat Cohen or the pianists Bill Charlap and , to a lesser degree, Gerald Clayton. I have some admiration for these kinds of players whilst keeping in the back of my mind the nagging doubt that the audience for this kind of jazz must be diminishing. However, whenever I have gone to "mainstream" gigs the halls have been fully booked even if the demography of the audience usually means I am often the youngest person there!
The whole concept of "old fashioned" is decidedly slippery territory. The Free jazz and Jazz-rock of the late 60s and early 70s is now 50 years old itself and had those musicians been playing the music of 50 years prior to that they would be performing ODJB -style Dixieland. There is little in jazz that has dated as poorly as Fusion or Jazz Rock (maybe some of the Hip-hop musings from early 90s or early 2000's Nu Jazz) and I would reiterate that I still think that poor quality avant garde jazz sucks like nothing else. I would also add that I find the idea of Charlie Parker as being "Modern Jazz" pretty ludicrous these days and certainly the differences between jazz produced in 1929 and 1959 no longer seem quite so pronounced. Parker is as much of a historical figure in 2019 as Freddie Keppard.
In my opinion, fair play to the likes of Barnes' finding something to say in this idiom but I think the results need to be good / original /interesting to stand out above the best jazz being recorded in the 2010's. I think the issue is whether the music such musicians are producing stands up to similar music in the style. I would also have to add that the Birchall track sounded no less "old fashioned" and even listening to an earlier JD Allen trio recording of blues material I would have to say that the ghost of Coltrane's "Crescent" hangs over this recording even though the newest record and "Radio Flyer" are far more outside and interesting.
I can appreciate why there are those who love Barnes and others see him as an irrelevance but British jazz has always had a niche for this kind of music making which is slightly in reverence of American jazz as opposed to looking at what it might offer and running with the baton. I do not feel that it is reasonable to discard all musicians offering this approach and it is a sad world that cannot embrace the full gamut of a music that has a recorded history which now exceeds 100 years. However, I think it probably says a lot more about the jazz audience and why Bluesnik's comment to Tina May is probably what a lot of other fans think - especially those whose experience is generally limited to listening to records as opposed to live gigs as was the case with TC. Funny to see the "Cooperisms" now manifesting themselves in SA's posts!
OG
Comment