moving music forward

Dan's post about the future of music is the kind of thing I like to
see...I recently read a good Pat Mehteny interview in a local mag, and
here's a few quotes about the state of jazz today..."There was a fairly
strong movement in the early '80's, for the first time in jazz history,
to go back in time with the music." Later..."I generally resist the
whole idea of jazz becoming repertory music in a certain style, the same
way that Baroque music was a certain style with very clear parameters."
And..."Someone like Wynton Marsalis, when he was young, decided to put
on a suit, act older and play for older people."
I posted this because the present state of jazz is awful...when I
listen to the radio, I can't tell if I am hearing a piece from 1950 or
2000..the guys today are really going backwards, instead of forwards,
just like Metheny is saying. Sure, there's creative stuff going on
somewhere, but it isn't getting any airplay. Jazz is, indeed, becoming a
fossil instead of a living form...Monk, Miles, Coltrane, etc, are
becoming just like Mozart and others in the clasical community. I have
talked at great length with the program director at the jazz station
here in Denver, and the owner has an agenda he is following, which
amounts to a very very narrow range of music being played on his
station...it's boring as hell to hear version after version of the great
standards.
I really think jazz would benefit from some non 12 tuning...some of
Catler's work is very good in that direction, and although I haven't
heard Joe Manieri's ECM stuff, I would imagine it's pretty hip (anybody
heard it?). If you listen to jazz radio in Denver, you would never know
that fusion music ever existed; you would think jazz is only 4/4 swing,
mostly piano and sax, followed by trumpet, guitar last...it is very
formula. Maybe us tuning guys will help change this sorry state of jazz
affairs, for it truly is a great art form...Hstick

Throughout all these discussions I'm constantly reminded that for
those of us who make the effort, music is a fluid thing, capable of
absorbing new things from everywhere and thus, remaining fresh.
However, unless the public at large is encouraged to consider music in the
same way, it will revert to a set of arbitrary standards as determined by
what the selectors in various media offer. It _does take effort and
concentration to both be excited by new musical happenings and to also want
them.
I think it's all summed up by an observation from Thomas Beecham which goes
something like: "Very few people love music, but the _do love the noise it
makes."
At 10:46 PM 10/17/00 -0600, you wrote:
> Dan's post about the future of music is the kind of thing I like to
>see...I recently read a good Pat Mehteny interview in a local mag, and
>here's a few quotes about the state of jazz today..."There was a fairly
>strong movement in the early '80's, for the first time in jazz history,
>to go back in time with the music." Later..."I generally resist the
>whole idea of jazz becoming repertory music in a certain style, the same
>way that Baroque music was a certain style with very clear parameters."
>And..."Someone like Wynton Marsalis, when he was young, decided to put
>on a suit, act older and play for older people."
> I posted this because the present state of jazz is awful...when I
>listen to the radio, I can't tell if I am hearing a piece from 1950 or
>2000..the guys today are really going backwards, instead of forwards,
>just like Metheny is saying. Sure, there's creative stuff going on
>somewhere, but it isn't getting any airplay. Jazz is, indeed, becoming a
>fossil instead of a living form...Monk, Miles, Coltrane, etc, are
>becoming just like Mozart and others in the clasical community. I have
>talked at great length with the program director at the jazz station
>here in Denver, and the owner has an agenda he is following, which
>amounts to a very very narrow range of music being played on his
>station...it's boring as hell to hear version after version of the great
>standards.
> I really think jazz would benefit from some non 12 tuning...some of
>Catler's work is very good in that direction, and although I haven't
>heard Joe Manieri's ECM stuff, I would imagine it's pretty hip (anybody
>heard it?). If you listen to jazz radio in Denver, you would never know
>that fusion music ever existed; you would think jazz is only 4/4 swing,
>mostly piano and sax, followed by trumpet, guitar last...it is very
>formula. Maybe us tuning guys will help change this sorry state of jazz
>affairs, for it truly is a great art form...Hstick
>
>
>
>You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
>email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@egroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@egroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@egroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@egroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@egroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
>
>
>

Neil Haverstick wrote:

> I posted this because the present state of jazz is awful...when I
> listen to the radio, I can't tell if I am hearing a piece from 1950 or
> 2000..the guys today are really going backwards, instead of forwards,
> just like Metheny is saying. Sure, there's creative stuff going on
> somewhere, but it isn't getting any airplay. Jazz is, indeed, becoming a
> fossil instead of a living form...Monk, Miles, Coltrane, etc, are
> becoming just like Mozart and others in the clasical community. I have
> talked at great length with the program director at the jazz station
> here in Denver, and the owner has an agenda he is following, which
> amounts to a very very narrow range of music being played on his
> station...it's boring as hell to hear version after version of the great
> standards.

Jazz lives in NYC where there's a LOT going on. Give a listen to
WKCR on the net.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/wkcr/indexb.html

I recomend the M-F 1-3 pm and 6-9 pm Jazz programing. Sure they'll
still play standards and Jazz history, a lot of times a dj
will play a theme program. But they do acknowledge that Jazz
exists below 14th street. The Wednesday Musician's Show
Wed., 6pm - 9pm is pretty hip with a guest musican calling
the shots. I like their World Music programs too.

> I really think jazz would benefit from some non 12 tuning...some of
> Catler's work is very good in that direction, and although I haven't
> heard Joe Manieri's ECM stuff, I would imagine it's pretty hip (anybody
> heard it?).

Sure, I'd say it's pretty odd but I do like it.

> If you listen to jazz radio in Denver, you would never know
> that fusion music ever existed; you would think jazz is only 4/4 swing,
> mostly piano and sax, followed by trumpet, guitar last...it is very
> formula. Maybe us tuning guys will help change this sorry state of jazz
> affairs, for it truly is a great art form...Hstick

One mans Jazz is anothers noise and so many types of music
fall under the umbrella of Jazz. Is Derek Bailey Jazz or free
improvisation?

db

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

David Beardsley wrote,

> One mans Jazz is anothers noise and so many types of music fall
under the umbrella of Jazz. Is Derek Bailey Jazz or free
improvisation?

Actually I think it was Derek Bailey who coined the phrase
"non-idiomatic improvisation" in a direct attempt to disassociate a
certain form of improvised music from the "jazz" in free-jazz which
was (as still is really) pretty much inexorably tethered to the term
free-improvisation... Of course once the various ideological
distinctions are sorted out and understood, non-idiomatic
improvisation is just another form of idiomatic improvisation and
free-jazz is just as rule-bound as traditional jazz!

Personally I like the "Ellington rule": if it sounds good, it IS good!
But your certainly right -- what's good to some is anything but to
others and vice versa.

--d.stearns