Once past the jive at the beginning this turned out to be a frank and wide-ranging interview, covering not only Ezra but a rundown on how this grouping and its contemporaries emerged from Tomorrow's Warriors a decade ago, but also offering their take on this new generation's relationships with predecessors, mentors such as Fela Kuti, and familiar figures in jazz history.
-
-
I saw this piece on "All about jazz" too and was surprised that it hadn't been written by Chris May who usually writes articles like this concerning the new and shiny. Having read it, I have to admit that it did make me feel really old and I have to admit that I did not understand alot of what was said. Most of it is meaningless and my openess to this music stopped when the influence of Grime was mentioned. I have never listened to this group but there is a lot of posturing in this interview.
To be honest, the underlining point for me is just how the values as to what is "good jazz" or even what jazz is these days is being questioned. There are so many conflicting notions thrown up here such as a desire to reconnect with the "street" whilst at the same time going through a formal musical education as well as the fact that major influences no longer seem to come from within jazz. I get that - for jazz to survive, it needs to reflect the society of it's day yet I am wondering if the whole notion of the freedom offered through improvisation really matters these days. It just seem that "groove" is far more important for a younger generation of British jazz musicians and this article suggests at one point that the American scene is considered to be "old-fashioned." So much British jazz now seems like a cut and paste exercise over a groove. I do not doubt that the Ezra Collecive are relevant and concur that they need to be judged by a different set of criteria than those dominant when I first listened to jazz.
In some respects, I can totally agree with the perspective taken and understand why is might be taken to carry far more weight than the recent vogue for more European - influenced jazz ( and especially acoustic piano trios) where white / European musicians have totally lost the connection with jazz's identity. So much contemporary jazz is extremely boring or well-mannered at best and it has lost the ability to shock and startle. However, I am wondering if I am not the only one who does not have a clue as to as to what Femi Keoloso is talking about. I would hazard a guess that no one who contributes to this board is listening to the Ezra Collective. I somewhat doubt is anyone older than 35 is listening to them either or even has had the notion to make the connection between jazz and grunge. If I was younger, I have no doubt that this is what I would be into yet the article is symptomatic of why I have grown really disatisfied with contemporary jazz over the last 12 months. Contemporary jazz either seems too polite or is like sophisticated pop music. A lot of the mainstream jazz is starting to sound a little stale too or over-awed by the music's heritage. You have to really search hard to find jazz which abides by the kind of tenets that were more prevalent in the 80s and 90s.
I have hardly bought any jazz recordings in the last year and tend to go to classical concerts these days if I want to hear live music. It is more interesting to listen to something written over 120 years ago by someone like Mahler about whom I know really little as opposed to what passes as contemporary jazz these days. I am fascinated by classical composers who are unfamiliar and find discovering them far more rewarding than any jazz released in the last few years. The last jazz records which made an impression on me were either by Guillermo Klein, Mario Pavone or the group Tarbaby that featured the piano Orrin Evans and veteran saxophonist Oliver Lake, For me, this is what "creativity" sounds like. The British jazz scene seems to be extremely "modish" these days and the hype surrounding the music does put me off. The Ezra Collective won't make me think any different about this even though I totally concur that something needs to shake things up and new jazz needs to have some balls.
I would be intrigued to see if this article resonates with anyone else. My guess is that this music is being favoured by the younger generation and / or student and perhaps off the radar for a more traditional audience. Can't see Bluesnik, Jazzrook or even SA checking this out . The article makes this music sound like something quite different from jazz. -
In find myself in a lot of agreement with Ian's assessment of that Ezra article. Parallels in my own induction into jazz in the early 60s obviously can't exactly equate with those of Ian, or of the generation demographic appealed to in this what I suppose you have to call new genre, or sub-genre: there was no equivalent of fusion back then, not until the start of the Brit Blues boom of the 60s, where us belated under-aged modern jazz refugees had to seek out fashionable bands prepared to take elements of jazz into their mix, like Georgie Fame's Blue Flames, the Graham Bond Organisation and Brian Auger's Trinity with Julie Driscoll. In the case of jazz one did not necessarily or automatically identify with what was current - Bebop had been the most adventurous and innovative until we came across Dolphy. Mingus, George Russell, Ornette, Cecil (a bit later) and had the privilege of following the still evolving Coltrane. I was similarly conservative as regards what constituted jazz - much more so in the mid-60s than in the 1970s when the music acquired the sociopolitical dimension it had, of course, always implicitly had. Furthermore I think we must have at the very least "got" the idea that jazz musicians underwent long-term maturation and evolution - which went along with an associated idea that jazz was by nature in opposition to then-current commercially-driven notions of what constituted "novelty", and thus chimed with the radical politics we shared in.
I think I need to sleep on all these issues before reaching definitive positions on them.Comment
Comment