I had a really interesting conversation with my friends Tom and Mary last night on the subject of whether music was becoming more homogeneous and less interesting with the passage of time. Initially the discussion was prompted by comments about Elton John's corny piano playing but it quickly developed into how the market for pop music was making artists less interesting so that (to quote the examples given) songwriters such as Kate Bush or Joni Mitchell would struggle to make an impression in 2011 as they would be perceived as too idiosyncratic. I was fascinated to learn that the trend was very much encouraged by Neil Sedaka who apparently managed to ascertain the ingredients of what makes a "hit pop song" and, having hit on the formula, continued to produce a string of records which all shared similar qualities regarding key, tempo, form, etc and ultimately earned him alot of commercial success.
The discussion then lead on to jazz and the music of Charlie Parker and how the obvious quality of his soloing abilities can be set against the lack of variety of the style of music made by his various groups. A salient point was made that listening to say, the 4-CD Proper Box set of his work could be a tiring process. Furthermore , other than sessions with strings, Latin musicians and the odd big band session, there is as little variety in Parker's recorded output as is the case with pop music. I have to agree with the observation that it simply would not be acceptable to make records in the almost off-hand fashion of Parker these days as both producers and listeners would demand something more considered. One of my friends, who essentially listens to little jazz from before 1960, pointed out that he admires the obvious brilliance of Parker from a historical point of view but finds the palette too limited , especially from the advantage of nearly 70 years. This is the comment from someone who I respect and who listens to a wide range of contemporary jazz styles even though he is older than myself. The culmination of this debate was how jazz musicians who might now be considered "mainstream" had tackled the issue of making their music original and interesting by pitching their music in some way that made it sound "contemporary" even if the vocabulary they employed might not be as "progressive" as other musicians considered to be "cutting edge."
This got me thinking about a series of records I have bought over the last 6 months where musicians have worked in an idiom that is decidedly not at the cutting edge of the music nor even post-Coltrane but who have addressed playing the musical styles of an earlier era yet managed to create something wholly creative and interesting to listen to. Given that a front-line led blowing session is not really of much interest to the more sophisticated tastes of today's jazz audience, I love the way that musicians as diverse as Ben Allison, Gerald Clayton, Russell Malone and (latest discovery) Anat Cohen are very much "conservatives" but that they imbibe a freshness in their music which makes it wholly ot their era. So, for example, Clayton's trio make take it's nod from many a pianist from the 1950's but the drummer is not afraid to employ more contemporary beats. Furthermore, as is typical of today's artists, most musicians also seem to progress from project to project with different bands or ideas.
When I first got into jazz, Mainstream always seemed ambiguous as there were those musicians I particularly enjoyed such as Buck Clayton and those I disliked such as Ruby Braff even though the overall idiom roughly covered the style of jazz from the Swing Era to Fifties Modern / West Coast. I suppose that the original notion of Mainstream seemed to be peppered with some of the cream of the soloists who were often enbedded within the jazz orchestras of the 30's / 40's with a sprinkling of younger musicians to spice things up. I think this continued up until the 70's / 80's with labels like Concord that continued the notion with a fair number of "young fogies" like Scott Hamilton. However, I think this changed by the late 90's so that musicians like Harry Allen ,who is not dissimilar to Hamilton in many ways, started to work with more contemporary rhythm sections. The improvement is very noticeable, in my opinion. You could also add Eric Alexander to this list. You are also finding musicians like Greg Cohen or Randy Sandke who are quite happy to work in all idioms or, as is the case with the latter, do some pretty wierd micro-tonal music with a Mainstream / Modern band.
To my ears, I think these musicians are fascinating. I love to hear musicians who are new to me and although the more adventurous players are extremely exciting at this point in time, it is also true that the mainstream has definately received a shot in the arm over the last decade. I feel that there is a sense of adventure and originality in this music that is very welcome and perhaps indicative that elements of all jazz playing (including free improvisation in the case of a live Malone CD I have) can now be swallowed by an audience who had hitherto been sceptical of the yoinger generation of fans. Fascinating to read the reviews of Cohen's CD's on the American Amerzon site as the more favourable remarks obviously seem to come from fans who probably cut their jazz teeth 50-60 years ago.
The discussion then lead on to jazz and the music of Charlie Parker and how the obvious quality of his soloing abilities can be set against the lack of variety of the style of music made by his various groups. A salient point was made that listening to say, the 4-CD Proper Box set of his work could be a tiring process. Furthermore , other than sessions with strings, Latin musicians and the odd big band session, there is as little variety in Parker's recorded output as is the case with pop music. I have to agree with the observation that it simply would not be acceptable to make records in the almost off-hand fashion of Parker these days as both producers and listeners would demand something more considered. One of my friends, who essentially listens to little jazz from before 1960, pointed out that he admires the obvious brilliance of Parker from a historical point of view but finds the palette too limited , especially from the advantage of nearly 70 years. This is the comment from someone who I respect and who listens to a wide range of contemporary jazz styles even though he is older than myself. The culmination of this debate was how jazz musicians who might now be considered "mainstream" had tackled the issue of making their music original and interesting by pitching their music in some way that made it sound "contemporary" even if the vocabulary they employed might not be as "progressive" as other musicians considered to be "cutting edge."
This got me thinking about a series of records I have bought over the last 6 months where musicians have worked in an idiom that is decidedly not at the cutting edge of the music nor even post-Coltrane but who have addressed playing the musical styles of an earlier era yet managed to create something wholly creative and interesting to listen to. Given that a front-line led blowing session is not really of much interest to the more sophisticated tastes of today's jazz audience, I love the way that musicians as diverse as Ben Allison, Gerald Clayton, Russell Malone and (latest discovery) Anat Cohen are very much "conservatives" but that they imbibe a freshness in their music which makes it wholly ot their era. So, for example, Clayton's trio make take it's nod from many a pianist from the 1950's but the drummer is not afraid to employ more contemporary beats. Furthermore, as is typical of today's artists, most musicians also seem to progress from project to project with different bands or ideas.
When I first got into jazz, Mainstream always seemed ambiguous as there were those musicians I particularly enjoyed such as Buck Clayton and those I disliked such as Ruby Braff even though the overall idiom roughly covered the style of jazz from the Swing Era to Fifties Modern / West Coast. I suppose that the original notion of Mainstream seemed to be peppered with some of the cream of the soloists who were often enbedded within the jazz orchestras of the 30's / 40's with a sprinkling of younger musicians to spice things up. I think this continued up until the 70's / 80's with labels like Concord that continued the notion with a fair number of "young fogies" like Scott Hamilton. However, I think this changed by the late 90's so that musicians like Harry Allen ,who is not dissimilar to Hamilton in many ways, started to work with more contemporary rhythm sections. The improvement is very noticeable, in my opinion. You could also add Eric Alexander to this list. You are also finding musicians like Greg Cohen or Randy Sandke who are quite happy to work in all idioms or, as is the case with the latter, do some pretty wierd micro-tonal music with a Mainstream / Modern band.
To my ears, I think these musicians are fascinating. I love to hear musicians who are new to me and although the more adventurous players are extremely exciting at this point in time, it is also true that the mainstream has definately received a shot in the arm over the last decade. I feel that there is a sense of adventure and originality in this music that is very welcome and perhaps indicative that elements of all jazz playing (including free improvisation in the case of a live Malone CD I have) can now be swallowed by an audience who had hitherto been sceptical of the yoinger generation of fans. Fascinating to read the reviews of Cohen's CD's on the American Amerzon site as the more favourable remarks obviously seem to come from fans who probably cut their jazz teeth 50-60 years ago.
Comment