Not "real" jazz

[davis]

but I love it and call it jazz. your turn.

[Steve F.]

well, I call it jazz too. Jazz in the 'big sense' of the word, which, luckily, jazz seems to be these days.

[No Pride]

"What is jazz?" is no less difficult than "what is prog?"

[davis]

"What is jazz?" is no less difficult than "what is prog?"

I started this thread cause in the Charile Parker thread, I think it was Steve F that told me that hardcore jazz people wouldn't consider the Lounge Lizards or Flat Earth Society to be "Real Jazz." I've always had the impression that 'jazz' is the widest ranging genre of all music, so afaic they fit right in.

[wideopenears]

There are always conservative Jazz fans who say such things......when Parker hit, they said it. When Miles went cool, they said it. When Coltrane hit, they said it. When Coltrane hit again, they said it. When someone plugged in a keyboard, they said it, when Steve Swallow went electric, they said it. When Mahavishnu Orchestra made eardrums bleed, they said it, too......

Mind you, I dig the traditional, acoustic "modern jazz" that owes it's existence to the Miles groups, etc.--I like the Scott Hamiltons of this world, too, and the Don Bradens, and even the Wyntons of this world--I love that music. But I don't take much stock in the attitude that dismisses music just because it doesn't fit someones neat little definition of where it should "go." At the same time, I think it's right and proper to explain to potential new listeners the differences between the acoustic, post-bop modernist tradition and bands like the Lounge Lizards, or Jagga Jazzist, or the latest ECM releases....being able to be precise in our verbal descriptions is helpful, as long as it's not to be exclusionary or reactionary, in my book.

[rcarlberg]

Not "real jazz" but I love it.

[Zeuhlmate]

[rcarlberg]

"What is jazz?" is no less difficult than "what is prog?"

The wonks will tell you if the players miss enough notes, it's jazz.

[adap2it]

The wonks will tell you if the players miss enough notes, it's jazz.

My Dad would say that modern jazz was not jazz...

[rcarlberg]

My Dad would say that modern jazz was not jazz...

I got no kick against modern jazz.

[Mister Triscuits]

I started this thread cause in the Charile Parker thread, I think it was Steve F that told me that hardcore jazz people wouldn't consider the Lounge Lizards or Flat Earth Society to be "Real Jazz." I've always had the impression that 'jazz' is the widest ranging genre of all music, so afaic they fit right in.

Well, the Lounge Lizards themselves call what they do "fake jazz."

[GuitarGeek]

There was a particular infamous review of John Coltrane, I think of one of the concerts from the very same run that produced Live At The Village Vanguard and the live tracks on Impressions, where his music was branded as "anti-jazz".

There was a story I heard that supposedly Wynton Marsalis gave an interview where he said if he had been in charge of the Kennedy Center's jazz program in 1963, he'd not have let Coltrane perform there, then realized that he had just made a faux pas and tried to back pedal and explain his position on the matter. Never found out if that actually happened, or if it was just an urban legend.

I do remember Stanley Crouch saying in that Ken Burns program that Electric Miles was like "tennis without a net...there's nothing there". And as I recall, Ken Burns didn't bother finding someone who could rebut Stanley Crouch's tin eared opinion.

[davis]

Well, the Lounge Lizards themselves call what they do "fake jazz."

I didn't know that, but I'm very glad you mentioned it. Seriously. I'm especially elated (modern word: stoked; w/enthusiasm: fucking stoked!) that you referred to them in the present tense, since their last release was in 1998. But what?! My reaction to your post has sent me to http://amuletrecords.shop.musictoday...px?cp=36_64709, which I'll probably buy. I even have the Marvin fucking Pontiac CD.

[rcarlberg]

There was a story I heard that supposedly Wynton Marsalis gave an interview where he said if he had been in charge of the Kennedy Center's jazz program in 1963, he'd not have let Coltrane perform there, then realized that he had just made a faux pas and tried to back pedal and explain his position on the matter. Never found out if that actually happened, or if it was just an urban legend.

Sounds entirely plausible -- Wynton has shot off his mouth like that many times. His father raised him to think Dixieland was the peak of jazz.

[davis]

Sounds entirely plausible -- Wynton has shot off his mouth like that many times. His father raised him to think Dixieland was the peak of jazz.

isn't the "peak of jazz' subjective?

[rcarlberg]

Not if you're a Marsalis.

[adap2it]

I got no kick against modern jazz.

unless they play it too darn fast!

[davis]

Not if you're a Marsalis.

I wouldn't know Marsalis music if I heard it. I, perhaps in error, have assumed Wynton and Branford to be too mainstream because their names are nearly ubiquitous. I suppose I should check them out to hear for myself.

[Digital_Man]

My Dad would say that modern jazz was not jazz...

My dad liked a lot of stuff that would later become known as smooth jazz such as Spyro Gyra, Crusaders, Larry Carlton, Bob James, Dave Gruison, Lee Ritenour, Grover Washington Jr., Chuck Mangione, David Sanborne, Yellowjackets, etc etc. I would even throw Steely Dan into that genre actually. I like some of it to some degree. I think the smooth jazz thing got increasingly worse though and by the time Kenny G spot came along it was time to vomit. Yeah I know there are those that don't consider smooth jazz to be real jazz but there's also those who don't consider fusion to be real jazz either(and imo it's not but who gives a fruck anyway it's good music).

[rcarlberg]

I wouldn't know Marsalis music if I heard it. I, perhaps in error, have assumed Wynton and Branford to be too mainstream because their names are nearly ubiquitous. I suppose I should check them out to hear for myself.

They are very good traditional Jazzists. As long as you don't look for innovation or 'outside' influences or 'pushing the envelope,' you'll enjoy their craft.

They are like a factory that turns out reproductions of Norman Rockwell paintings for motels.

[davis]

They are very good traditional Jazzists. As long as you don't look for innovation or 'outside' influences or 'pushing the envelope,' you'll enjoy their craft.

They are like a factory that turns out reproductions of Norman Rockwell paintings for motels.

thanks for the warning. I'll check some amazon samples with low expectations.

[Reid]

thanks for the warning. I'll check some amazon samples with low expectations.

The Marsalis brothers play at a very high level. I haven't followed them over the years, but I remember a couple of early Wynton albums being very good. Black Codes, and J Mood. But there's so much other great stuff out there, so I don't gravitate towards their releases. But getting started anywhere listening to great jazz players is the main thing. There is so much music and history, that it took me about 15 years of listening to get a good handle on a significant amount of the musical legacy of the past 80-90 years or so.

[rcarlberg]

Hey, they are very good at what they do. Wynton has done some solos that knocked my socks off. I don't mean to denigrate what they do.

And for those who like them, 'denigrate' means 'to put down.'

[Reid]

But they are not unique. How many jazz players who came up in the past 30 years spearheaded a new forward movement, or have their own sound? Take a guy like Chris Potter. He's a tremendous player, but it doesn't do much for me. I'm sure bandleaders like Dave Holland and Pat Metheny appreciate his dedication and musicianship, but I'd rather listen to someone with a personal voice, than all those notes.

[rcarlberg]

Certainly. So-called 'conservatory trained' jazz musicians who went to Berklee or Julliard can be, usually are, fantastic technically.

Developing your own sound, that's a whole different bag.