If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I was intrigued by this piece of news in Jazzwise this month. I'm not sure what to make of the original running title for the series - but I think Elm (first comment below the article) has probably hit the nail on the head!
so grippie, did you leave this commentary on the site?
" Comments
Elm -
The new slot will be called Inverted Jazz Snob Eats Own Brains. First guests
will be hip hopping mad genre-busting newcomers Guys From The Hood performing
'We can't play, we can't sing, so we chant everything. Yo!' They'll be joined by
the genre-busting Malaria, who will be s-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ing her latest hit
'Jumpin' on the bandwagon'. Finally the genre-busting Ukrainian State Turntable
and Drum Machine Orchestra will play us out with 'Tossers'.
Does it mean Jazz snobs(go and)eat shit. or jazz snobs(do)eat shit? No problem with genre crossing, problem is it's usually awful. "Busting" makes it sound terribly dramatic, when it often turns out a soppy compromise.
The jazz/hip-hop stuff is often more like the C21 version of Stan Getz wearing stacked heels and playing with a soft funk backing than H. Hancock's Sextant.
The problem to me is the latter did all this stuff years ago, and better, before it even had a name.
I took it to mean the former - though I agree with S-A (#4), some of the acts on the bill do look good.
Not quite sure what the message is - but thought it worthy of discussion!
OG
Yes, I took it to meant that as well. Some of the bands do look good. It's the sentiment in the advertising guff that's alll wrong, isnt it? The message is aimed at that rather than the musiicians in question I'd say.
how would jez ever know what has been done before? .... he has been pumping thin else for ever .... he means this bored jazbos .... and its earlier incarnation .....
According to the best estimates of astronomers there are at least one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.
how would jez ever know what has been done before? .... he has been pumping thin else for ever .... he means this bored jazbos .... and its earlier incarnation .....
Perhaps board members would like some badges then - Proud to be a Jazz Snob
This article typifies so many things that I think is wrong with the current jazz scene. For me, there is almost an element of shame amongst those musicians wishing to rock the boat of the "notional" jazz establishment but the underlying element is simply a matter of marketing. The reference to John Zorn puts me off as he is a musician is flits between inspired brilliance and almost a slap-stick approach to improvisation which has it's routes very much in the early 80's when it was seen as counter-culture to the then burgeoning new Neos. Oddily, both approaches to jazz now seem equally dated 30 years on whilst the musicians who simply ploughed on with their art and stuck to a more "traditional" middle ground have survived the test of time more successfully.
The best kind of jazz doesn't really need to market itself with any gimmicks and is capable of surviving without the Jez-style hyperbole. I must admit that I've read "Jazzwise" for years although I was an avid reader at one stage and subscribed for many years. Articles like the one in the link and the continual anti-Bush references by Stuart Nicholson made is very difficult to reconcile the music I loved with the content of the magazine and in the end I cancelled my subscription. I think there are plenty of other sources of information which are probably more informed that the parcochial and pro-European "Jazzwise" and for several years I subscribed to "Jazz Hot" to learn French and get a more balanced picture of the music without "Jazzwise'" endeavour to seem so modish. This magazine no longer exists but it included more contemporary "mainstream" players and had an affinity for earlier forms of jazz from 20-s to 60's. It was a good read and always seemed to treat the reader and musicians alike with respect and the contributors had a genuine love of the music which would never have suggested the "jazz critics should eat shit." In my opinion, it was a publication which got to the nitty-gritty of the music in a way that a website like "All about jazz" also seems to benefit from the valued opiniono of musicians and fans. If anything, "Jazz Hot" had almost Bluesnik-esque approach to jazz than totally eschewed the kind of her one minute / gone the next type of jazz favoured by Jez.
The other strange thing about the article is that it implies that the artistic element within jazz almost needs to be looked down upon. I think that there is a problem with marketing musicians from an earlier generation and it can't be missed that many of the musicians from the great days of the 1960's are no longer with us. I don't think trying to be too modish is a solution whilst recognising that a teenager coming to jazz in 2012 will probably find musicians like Ornette, Rollins, Hancock and Shorter to be of the kind of difference in generation as the remnants of the musicians from the 20's/ 30's who were still around when I was of that age. However, whilst a musician like Sonny Rollins or Ornette Coleman may seem archaic to today's youngsters, surely the more "jazz savvy" fans will be checking out the likes of Jason Moran, Ambrose Akinmusire , Vijay Iyer, Dave Douglas , Miguel Zenon, etc, etc who are now filling the same role as the roster of Blue Note recording artists did in the 50's / 60's. Additionally, the towering geniuses of this generation include the likes of Keith Jarrett, Pat Metheny, John Scofield, Joe Lovano, Kenny Barron, Dave Holland, Bill Frisell, Roy Hargrove, Jack DeJohnette - all demonstrative of the wealth of today's jazz scene without the need to Jez's gimmicks.
Thanks Ian, a thoughtful critique. With regard to Jazzwise - I think the tone of the article is more Jezwise than Jazzwise (it is a news article and not editorial). More or less the same appears on the Cockpit website.
Comment