Jazz is dead...or is it?

[grippie]

It's just shagged out and tired after a long 100 years evolving

http://youtu.be/npjOSLCR2hE

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

or is it evolving after 100 hundred years of shagging ? ....?

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

There's a certain dark irony about the BBC running a programme about the death of jazz...after spending the last decade or so trying to fkng suffocate it.

BN.

[Ian Thumwood]

I seem to recall that Paul Morley was previously the recipient of his own thread on the old message board - something I think he shared with that other re-known and esteemed observer of "all things jazzy" ( as King Kennytone would used to say), Stuart Nicholson.

As stated by the likes of Bluesnik, this argument has been around the block for atleast 70 years and is well overdue to be put down, shot, thrown in the river in a sack with a brick in it, etc, etc. It amazes me that critics like Morley and Nicholson seem to be given so much space in the written and various electronic medias to spill their distorted and narrow-minded views. I totally agree with S-A that the current jazz scene seems to be richer than ever these days with such a wide range of styles and possibilities with even bop traditions being given a fresh approach by young artists such as Ambrose Akinmusire, etc.

It is surprising that editors seem so enthusiastic to commission pieces like this. I've read a number of reviews by Morley in some of the Sunday Telegraph and he is primarily a pop critic. I've never encountered him discussing jazz previously but if he ever decided to attend a jazz festival or even regularly attended his local concert halls for gigs, it would have stared himin the face just how varied and vibrant the jazz scene is in 2013. If anything, the demise of the major record labels and the resultant self-published recording industry has made the music more exciting, far riskier and has generally been to the benefit of the music. The great thing about jazz today is the fact that there is an appreciation of the tradition in many cases and a similar search for alternatives yet a good deal of the current crop of players seem willing to have their ears open to both sides of the argument. Jazz writing is probably now at the kind of level that would have seen impossible to imagine in the mid 1980's. Quite why the BBC should therefore commission a programme by Morley of this nature, I don't know. It's just lazy and probably far more inaccurate than to suggest that other styles are equally "dead." He may be able to cite Acker Bilk and Anthony Braxton, but I wonder just how familiar Morley is with jazz and whether he has anything more than a passing acquaintance?

In my opinion, the likes of Morley and Stuart Nicholson are given too much attention and seem to wish to grind out their boring and unoriginal agendas. Morley's articles on pop groups are couched in the kind of pseudo-academic language that suggests the instantly disposible is some how important and worthy of considered discussion. His journalism is just opinion and I don't really feel that he is qualified to discuss the music if he feels that it can be distilled down to "is it alive or is it dead?" In some ways Nicholson is almost more further of being dispatched quickly. He is like a historian with an agenda but who totally ignores the fact that there may be another perspective. I must admit I stopped sibscribing to "Jazzwise" many years ago largely due to his journalism and the fact that the magazine seemed to be judging jazz by his "Young & European" agenda. Twelve years down the line, it is interesting just how much his opinions have been overtaken by events. The "European Revolution" and "Nu Jazz" quickly faded from it's prominent position and maybe the more "orthodox" American styles have started to asert themselves. Nicholson may have felt he was on to something when I used to read his articles in "Jazzwise" yet I think he has ultimately proved to have made some fatally flawed judgements and under-estimated the potency of the music. The music is always changing but I feel that whilst the boundaries are continually being expanded, the core of the music still remains integral - whether it is played by the likes of Jason Moran, David Binney, Walter Smith III, Greg Osby, etc. I think it is just better to explore and enjoy the music rather than to suggest that things aren't as good as in 1927, 1945, 1958 0r 1964, etc. etc.

There is too little of jazz on the radio and it is a shame that Radio 4 should produce something like this. Morley may have a pretty good command of language yet he falls into the traps of picking up the same cliches. It sounds like this documentary was made in about 2003 - shame he didn't seem to really investigate the music in proper depth to truly appreciate the broad range of the jazz than is played. He could have read a text book and produced that rubbish! Shame that he never took the time to really discuss anything beyond be-bop / Coltrane and totally ignored the fact that jazz nowadays can incorporate very sophisticated wiritng (probably the most important element in the music at the moment if you consider Schneider, Hollenbeck, Binney, etc), European folk and classical unfluences, blues, funk, big bands, Brazilian, Latin, etc, etc. Even someone like Dave Douglas has been able to embrace a multitude of styles which would smash Morley's argument's to pieces. Even if you look at the mechanics within the music and get a grasp of the theory, the suggestion that 50% jazz musicians are just running changes is total bollocks. Sorry, this programme did not reflect the jazz scene as I undrrtstsnd it to be.

[Serial_Apologist]

Well said Ian! I just can't wait to hear what Mr Morley had to say....

[Quarky]

Well said Ian! I just can't wait to hear what Mr Morley had to say....

Couldn't possibly add to this demolition of Paul Morley, starting with BN and ending with Ian.

But I would just like to point out that Jazz is possibly unique in having a reputation for extremely fast evolution, amounting to revolution. Therefore according to Paul Morley, if it no longer revolts, it no longer exists.

But most other forms of music go the other way in emphasising the links to their historical origin. Mary Ann Kennedy is quite happy to sing an ancient Gaelic song, and her supporters are quite happy to listen to her. In regard to Classical Music, most Classical listeners still have difficulty with Schoenberg, the new kid on the block, who started composition 2 centuries ago!

So as far as I am concerned, if Jazz musicians want to take a little time and go over the contributions of Monk, Mingus, Trane, and the free jazzers, and make some of the more extreme forms of the music more edible, then that's OK with me!

[Serial_Apologist]

I would just like to point out that Jazz is possibly unique in having a reputation for extremely fast evolution, amounting to revolution. Therefore according to Paul Morley, if it no longer revolts, it no longer exists.

But most other forms of music go the other way in emphasising the links to their historical origin.

Would I be right in thinking that the first time jazz paid explicit homage to its originators was Benny Goodman's tributes to the ODJB, Satchmo and co at the 1938 Carnegie Hall concert? Possibly at John Hammond's instigation or encouragement; but the point I wanted to make is that the first time historicism really becomes an "issue" was in Wynton Marsalis rejecting the free jazz and fusion, whose fruition preceded his own championing by conservative sections of the jazz pr machine for whom record sales equated with aesthetic success and cause for emulation. Up until the early 1980s jazz's advance in terms of instrumental facility and expansion of its own language had increasingly evolved by questioning and challenging creatively limiting commercial demands demeaning and stereotyping of black American music. In being effectively marginalised into self-support jazz inflated the political as well as musical substantiation it had had at least since bebop made anti-establishment figures out if its founders and progenitors: eliding with the political radicalism of the 60s and 70s the once impicit politics of jazz - its way of advancing the equalisation of roles in performance reflected in co-operative self-organisation and promotion. It is interesting that this was taking place contemporaneously with bids to achieve "respectability" for jazz by its inclusion on academic courses. What at one time had been a gain - the right of black musicians to earn sufficiently to acquire formal disciplines - was now being thrown back at cutting-edge jazz surviving on whatever community support it could garner by young besuited black whippersnappers being courted by an unholy alliance of conservative academia, politics and big business. For anyone who sees jazz as explicitly about musical advance, and welcomes the taking up of the cudgels once more by younger generations, even though, for the first time, they are having to go back further than their immediate predecessors in order to pick up the reins, it should be no surprise that voices from the commercial end of things are once more proclaiming (ie "lamenting") the supposed death of the music.

[Lateralthinking1]

Having had two attempts to answer Morley's question, I have decided to withdraw both. The more I think of it, the more his question seems like a kind of trap. The best response is probably not to be drawn into its rather narrow brand of negativism. At this point, it would be easy to criticise him more than hitherto but I am not going to do that either. He hardly needs the oxygen of publicity but we might as well have the wider context so that people can decide for themselves. Here then is his interview in the Guardian with John Surman. It isn't terrible or great. It's that journalistic horror of horrors - slightly right and very unremarkable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/audio/2010/mar/18/john-surman-paul-morley

[Ian Thumwood]

LT / S-A

I believe the argument as to whether jazz is alive or dead has been done to death and as I suggested above, anyone who can be even contemplate this in a scene which has room for artists as diverse as Pat Metheny, Vijay Iyer, Keith Jarrett, Bobby Sanabria, John Hollenbeck, Harry Allen, Randy Sandke, Ahmed Jamal, Nivole Mitchell, Dirty Dozen Brass Band, Gwylim Simcock, Lucky Peterson, Tania Maria, Henry Threadgill, Darcy James Argue, Branford Marsalis, William Parker, Evan Parker, Miguel Zenon, Terje Rypdal, Dianne Reeves, Anat Cohen, MMW, etc, etc would have to have their credibility questioned . To my ears, I don't think jazz has ever more more varied or exciting. Certainly, the range of jazz that is now available would never have even been contemplated in the 50's and 60's which Morely seems to imply as some kind of Golden Era. (Whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that there were plenty of "conversative " acts around at this time too including musicians whose heydays were in the 20's or 30's. I don't think it is even interesting to most genuine fans of the music and I would suggest that it is something that is more of an occupation for journalists of lesser ability and an obvious lack of imagination. A genuine jazz fan would be celebrating the wealth of different kinds of jazz. (And probably be able to come up with plenty of better examples than The Necks as the epitomy of "cutting edge!"

My issue is more with the quality of the journalism as opposed to the concept that jazz is failing to match the achievement or relevance of it's glorious past. I was reminded of the absurdity of Morely's position when reading Ethan Iveson's excellent blog "Do the math" and in particular an interview where EI discusses favourite pianists with Jason Moran. The notion that someone is retrospective or pointing to some future development in jazz is never mentioned but instead the merits of various musicians centres around technical issues regarding the instrument and whether the musician might be in the zone when improvising. It is more a matter of immediacy and creativity as opposed to being "new" - as a non-musician Paul Morley entirely misses the point and, in my opinion, doesn't properly appreciate the kind of qualities within the music that give it the potency that it has. He has no real grasp of the creativity necessary to improvise and although I don't always agree with Iveson's conclusions, the point is that he understand exactly the process which makes jazz work even if this is refracted through his own personal taste. At this point, it might be worthwhile reflecting as to whether Morely's enthusiasm for the work of John Surman really merits the validity of his argument. After all, this boigraphy outlines that he is someone who has previously lent his erudite talents to discussing the work of Kylie Minogue:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morley

I feel extremely hostile towards this kind of journalism and am disappointed that the same lame arguments are given an airing by the likes of Paul Morely. Listening to the parts of the programme that particularly grated, I find it extremely hard to recognise the current scene from the argument presented and whilst I cannot doubt the passion shown by the presenter, there are plenty more topics which could have been chosen to illustrate aspects of the current scene which would have made a more original and interesting listen. Shame that by not concentrating on the scene in one particular city, looked at issues with festival programmes, invesitgated the role of composition in contempoary jazz or perhaps looked at the role of women within the music an opportunity was missed to demonstrate that jazz remains a vital component of serious music manking in 2013. Morley should stick to writing about Joy Division.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

dunno but the penultimate piece on Late Junction tonight was a remarkable improvised collaboration

[Quarky]

Having had two attempts to answer Morley's question, I have decided to withdraw both. The more I think of it, the more his question seems like a kind of trap. The best response is probably not to be drawn into its rather narrow brand of negativism. At this point, it would be easy to criticise him more than hitherto but I am not going to do that either. He hardly needs the oxygen of publicity but we might as well have the wider context so that people can decide for themselves. Here then is his interview in the Guardian with John Surman. It isn't terrible or great. It's that journalistic horror of horrors - slightly right and very unremarkable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/audi...an-paul-morley

Oh Lat! I had just decided you might well be correct in describing this issue as an age-related problem, as stated in your erudite and now withdrawn post.

Just a quick post:

Maybe these young ladies hold the key to Paul Morely's position: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20647027. May be Morely sees himself as an authentic voice of pop, and doesn't see a role for Jazz there.

None of the posters here are I believe teenagers, and cetainly not revolting against their elders and existing man-made structures.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Enough dancing around the coffin of braindead NME hacks...What next, Julie "Fat Bird" Burchill on Memphis Minnie, I feel her pain?

Ckout Lester Bowie's perfect solo response to this Masterboy euro-shit, "Jazz Death" with Rosco Mitchell on Utube. Wonderful and very funny. As Lester says..."It depends on WHAT you know..."

BN.

[Lateralthinking1]

Oh Lat! I had just decided you might well be correct in describing this issue as an age-related problem, as stated in your erudite and now withdrawn post.

Just a quick post:

Maybe these young ladies hold the key to Paul Morely's position: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20647027. May be Morely sees himself as an authentic voice of pop, and doesn't see a role for Jazz there.

None of the posters here are I believe teenagers, and cetainly not revolting against their elders and existing man-made structures.

But it was a bit excessive, wasn't it? I still have it in the vaults if it ever needs to be brought back.

On young ladies taking the world by storm as the new Fleetwood Mac, I deliberately delayed listening to "Rumours" in full for 30 years. While I have absolutely nothing against them, and there have been many far worse, I couldn't believe its ordinariness.

Anyhow, Michel Legrand's niece has been ploughing that particular furrow with aplomb for several years now. It makes me laugh how this is being presented as new. Time to compare and contrast. Which one is this? Yes that's right - "Dreams" - in Scandinavia!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHbtR8uO81M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dsh9M6qnhE