Meditation on creativity, conservatism, exploration and meaning in todays Jazz music.
This is the first in a series of writings I plan to work on over this summer. Things that have been tumbling around in my mind for some time now. It's not really an essay with a hypothesis or anything, it's just what I've been meaning to write down for a while now.
Modern Jazz Music: Onward? Backward?
This past year I have had the pleasure of being in two excellent music history courses at my university, New School University Jazz and Contemporary Music Programe in New York City.
The first one was a world music history course taught by Gerry Hemmingway, renound drummer and percussionist who played with amoung others, Anthony Braxton for an extended period of time. As most students are in my school, the students in the class came to the class quite willing to learn and excited to learn about such disperate musics as Basque percussion, Bulgarian polyphony, and Hawain slack key guitar. The class featured guest artists residing in NYC from countries like India and China, who demonstrated thier mastery of thier respective musics. Despite being early in the morning and commonly seeing my fellow students crawl into the class room with thier Murray's bagels and coffee, by the end of the class nearly everyone was attentive and engaged; more than once students met with Gerry after class to discuss the day's lecture or music. This is wonderful, but not suprising. There is a very diverse student body in the jazz program and naturally jazz has always been a music overly conducive to osmosis and mixing, and thus most students at the school are just as apt to want to learn the Karnatic rhythmic sylibol system as transcribing a Coltrane solo. That is the most wonderful thing about the school; watching people actively discussing and learning from eachother constantly in AND out of class. Everything from a Pat Martino concept to Bach or Mozart's hip use of voice leading and cadences. It makes for a constantly stimulating and productive enviroment.
This is why I was so confused when I took my second semester history class: Contemporary Jazz And It's Exponents. The synposis was most exciting to me: Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, Anthony Braxton etc. Some of the music's most innovative and forward thinking artists.
The class turned out to be a mess of paradoxes. Taught by booking agent and electronic musician Valibor Pedevski, the class moved chronologically through the 'avant garde' of jazz music from Ornette Coleman to Butch Warren and Henry Threadgill. The first thing I noticed within a couple classes was the other student's acute lack of respect, reverence or care for virtually any of the musicians, material or history in the class. Suddenly the engaged, attentive students were talking loudly and obnoxiously, people were sleeping on the floor in the back of lecture space and that is if half the class showed up, commonly not the case. This was immediatley curious to me as I thought the class would be a constant discussion and a great time to learn more about alot of musicians who were neglected from the mainstream. I admit I didn't care for every bit of music I heard, but I took the time to listen to it in class attentivley and openly and was pleasantly suprised most of the time.
However, I had begun noticing the teacher making a huge generalizations and points that were stingingly one sided and blunt. I can't recall word for word, but things like:
'All these young guys on the scene now, I can't even listen to them, theyre not going anywhere, they still just play on changes.' Often augmenting such points which qoutes on a whiteboard from some of the artists we were studying, displaying similar positions and generalizations. That got me thinking. While its true I get sick of radio stations, especially in Seattle, playing the same things over and over. The same tracks from Kind of Blue, or handpicked Coltrane tracks that are intended never to overstimulate the listener (ever notice how NOTHING from Coltrane's seminal Love Supreme album is ever played, or why NOTHING from the Miles Davis 60s quintet is played.) Sure the station might play some new artists, but they will play the same song (most accesible song) over and over, and god damn am I sick of hearing the DJ talk about Pearl Django (the Northwest's premiere Gypsy Jazz group) not because I dislike that music. No not at all, it just makes me angry that nothing of the more adventerous artists is represented, not even the most classic recordings. I mean it's laughable that I've never heard a track from E.S.P. or Miles Smiles on the radio. The radio fears change and embraces the music's most accesible past, and current artists who share that position. By doing so, they hurt the music by not representing the entireity of its immense potential and catalog and denying audiences exposure to anything but the nonoffensive.
But I digress. Although I hate the programing on the local jazz station, I would never agree with my teacher whos points had culminated in the theory that you must change and stretch the music as far as possible in order to truly be creative and reach your potential. Now I respect that statement, as theres no reason for anyone to learn to play exactly like Thelonius Monk or Bill Evans, because it's been done. But there is a thin line here. To say that an artist isnt living his or her potential because they havent embraced the progressionless omni-harmonic free playing of someone like Ornette Coleman or Cecil Taylor, or the refined non-tonal music of Anthony Braxton, is extremely shallow and represents an acute lack of imagination, as well as openess and understanding as to what constitues music.
This is where things got interesting. The more active part of the student body begun challenging the teacher so often that the latter part of the 3 hour class was entirely devoted to the discussion and arguments that such points brought up. I think that was best thing I got from the class, to listen to these arguments and both sides standing up for somethign they believe in so strongly, so much to almost completely missing the other ones point. This brings me to my opinion on the matter. There does not seem to be much of a point for siding strongly on one side or other. I LOVE the music of Ornette Coleman, but I also LOVE Eric Alexander's playing. Now Alexander is not an innovator, but his playing is so fine and beautiful it does not need to be. And that is the deeper question, does one's personal struggle to find thier own voice and passion in an already established genre or style constitute good music and art. To me it the answer is a resounding YES. Is that to say everyone should play jazz circa 1959-65 style? A resounding NO. I love Ornette Coleman and what he brought to the music, but it is noones obligation or duty to continue on the trail he has blazed unless it truly calls to them, and to many it does and to some others it doesn't. It seems like one's obligation to bring themselves to the music in thier own special way is too often confused with the idea that one must bring something entirely new, innovative and expansive to the art. Afterall Jazz is never the same twice, and it seems like the adventure of trying to follow that trail of notes and sound in your head to the truest ability while playing "Just Friends" or "Donna Lee" is just as valid as pushing the limits of rhythm and embracing atonality. It just seems like people think it is a battle in which one side must win. One must follow thier own personal muse where it takes them: if its Brazilian music mixed with rock and classical music so be it. If it is tango mixed with electronics. Or if its just plain bebop and trying to truly master the idiom to the extent of total and utter harmonic fluency. Free Jazz. Bossa Nova. Vocal. M-Base. Electronic jazz. Straight ahead.
Whatever calls to you, you cannot deny it, and if you do, youre doing yourself a diservice, the same way you would be if you only explored for the sake of exploring. Playing ANY type of jazz music is an exploration, an adventure and offers its own kind of freedom, whether its blazingly atonal, or a chaos within structure type of ideal.
To finish this segment of my thoughts on this matter I would like to bring an example of what I consider to be a beautiful example of a confluence of elements that works beautifully.
The first track on pianist (and New School Graduate) Brad Mehldau's Largo (produced by Jon Brion), "When It Rains" is a superb example of what seemingly disperate elements brought together by one's vision and drive. The tune is a simple AABA form with a beautiful chordal sequence and and equally beautiful and simple melody. The groove of the tune is like a slow rock beat and the drums bass and piano are accompanied by what I believe to be a group bassoons/french horns (most likely arranged by Jon Brion). The feel as a whole is something of a pop tune, although the word 'pop' has a certain stigma I'm not intending. Think smart pop music or someone like well Jon Brion for one, Air, or Radiohead. Something like that.
After the intro sequence and stating the melody, Mehldau begins to improvise with little fragments and all for the most part diatonic to the key (B major). As the piece moves onward the lines begin to stretch and move in odd directions harmonically while maintaining the same playfulness of the melody and the tune's vibe. The second chorus grows with more rhythmic impositions and harmonic departure, all while the horns in the background keep the basic harmonic structure of the tune. The third chorus finds diatonic harmony until the end of bridge where cascades of notes rain up and down in and out less related keys. Mehldau ends the solo with a beautiful and logical phrase and the tune finishes until the outro (same as the intro) is repeated once more, this time with only Mehldau playing the chords along with the line.
Is this earth shattering innovative free music that sounds like NOTHING else and has no defined chord structure? No, of course not, but it is so utterly moving, captivating and beautiful that it doesnt matter, as it shouldnt. The artist followed the muse and the end result is a very unique amalgam of style and finesse that comes from both a reverence of classic jazz music and a respect and love for contemporary pop music. And you know what? It works, spinechilling well.
I highly recomend you check out the track. Brad Mehldau "Largo" on Warner Brothers.
I will write more later. I gotta sleep.
peace.
Modern Jazz Music: Onward? Backward?
This past year I have had the pleasure of being in two excellent music history courses at my university, New School University Jazz and Contemporary Music Programe in New York City.
The first one was a world music history course taught by Gerry Hemmingway, renound drummer and percussionist who played with amoung others, Anthony Braxton for an extended period of time. As most students are in my school, the students in the class came to the class quite willing to learn and excited to learn about such disperate musics as Basque percussion, Bulgarian polyphony, and Hawain slack key guitar. The class featured guest artists residing in NYC from countries like India and China, who demonstrated thier mastery of thier respective musics. Despite being early in the morning and commonly seeing my fellow students crawl into the class room with thier Murray's bagels and coffee, by the end of the class nearly everyone was attentive and engaged; more than once students met with Gerry after class to discuss the day's lecture or music. This is wonderful, but not suprising. There is a very diverse student body in the jazz program and naturally jazz has always been a music overly conducive to osmosis and mixing, and thus most students at the school are just as apt to want to learn the Karnatic rhythmic sylibol system as transcribing a Coltrane solo. That is the most wonderful thing about the school; watching people actively discussing and learning from eachother constantly in AND out of class. Everything from a Pat Martino concept to Bach or Mozart's hip use of voice leading and cadences. It makes for a constantly stimulating and productive enviroment.
This is why I was so confused when I took my second semester history class: Contemporary Jazz And It's Exponents. The synposis was most exciting to me: Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, Anthony Braxton etc. Some of the music's most innovative and forward thinking artists.
The class turned out to be a mess of paradoxes. Taught by booking agent and electronic musician Valibor Pedevski, the class moved chronologically through the 'avant garde' of jazz music from Ornette Coleman to Butch Warren and Henry Threadgill. The first thing I noticed within a couple classes was the other student's acute lack of respect, reverence or care for virtually any of the musicians, material or history in the class. Suddenly the engaged, attentive students were talking loudly and obnoxiously, people were sleeping on the floor in the back of lecture space and that is if half the class showed up, commonly not the case. This was immediatley curious to me as I thought the class would be a constant discussion and a great time to learn more about alot of musicians who were neglected from the mainstream. I admit I didn't care for every bit of music I heard, but I took the time to listen to it in class attentivley and openly and was pleasantly suprised most of the time.
However, I had begun noticing the teacher making a huge generalizations and points that were stingingly one sided and blunt. I can't recall word for word, but things like:
'All these young guys on the scene now, I can't even listen to them, theyre not going anywhere, they still just play on changes.' Often augmenting such points which qoutes on a whiteboard from some of the artists we were studying, displaying similar positions and generalizations. That got me thinking. While its true I get sick of radio stations, especially in Seattle, playing the same things over and over. The same tracks from Kind of Blue, or handpicked Coltrane tracks that are intended never to overstimulate the listener (ever notice how NOTHING from Coltrane's seminal Love Supreme album is ever played, or why NOTHING from the Miles Davis 60s quintet is played.) Sure the station might play some new artists, but they will play the same song (most accesible song) over and over, and god damn am I sick of hearing the DJ talk about Pearl Django (the Northwest's premiere Gypsy Jazz group) not because I dislike that music. No not at all, it just makes me angry that nothing of the more adventerous artists is represented, not even the most classic recordings. I mean it's laughable that I've never heard a track from E.S.P. or Miles Smiles on the radio. The radio fears change and embraces the music's most accesible past, and current artists who share that position. By doing so, they hurt the music by not representing the entireity of its immense potential and catalog and denying audiences exposure to anything but the nonoffensive.
But I digress. Although I hate the programing on the local jazz station, I would never agree with my teacher whos points had culminated in the theory that you must change and stretch the music as far as possible in order to truly be creative and reach your potential. Now I respect that statement, as theres no reason for anyone to learn to play exactly like Thelonius Monk or Bill Evans, because it's been done. But there is a thin line here. To say that an artist isnt living his or her potential because they havent embraced the progressionless omni-harmonic free playing of someone like Ornette Coleman or Cecil Taylor, or the refined non-tonal music of Anthony Braxton, is extremely shallow and represents an acute lack of imagination, as well as openess and understanding as to what constitues music.
This is where things got interesting. The more active part of the student body begun challenging the teacher so often that the latter part of the 3 hour class was entirely devoted to the discussion and arguments that such points brought up. I think that was best thing I got from the class, to listen to these arguments and both sides standing up for somethign they believe in so strongly, so much to almost completely missing the other ones point. This brings me to my opinion on the matter. There does not seem to be much of a point for siding strongly on one side or other. I LOVE the music of Ornette Coleman, but I also LOVE Eric Alexander's playing. Now Alexander is not an innovator, but his playing is so fine and beautiful it does not need to be. And that is the deeper question, does one's personal struggle to find thier own voice and passion in an already established genre or style constitute good music and art. To me it the answer is a resounding YES. Is that to say everyone should play jazz circa 1959-65 style? A resounding NO. I love Ornette Coleman and what he brought to the music, but it is noones obligation or duty to continue on the trail he has blazed unless it truly calls to them, and to many it does and to some others it doesn't. It seems like one's obligation to bring themselves to the music in thier own special way is too often confused with the idea that one must bring something entirely new, innovative and expansive to the art. Afterall Jazz is never the same twice, and it seems like the adventure of trying to follow that trail of notes and sound in your head to the truest ability while playing "Just Friends" or "Donna Lee" is just as valid as pushing the limits of rhythm and embracing atonality. It just seems like people think it is a battle in which one side must win. One must follow thier own personal muse where it takes them: if its Brazilian music mixed with rock and classical music so be it. If it is tango mixed with electronics. Or if its just plain bebop and trying to truly master the idiom to the extent of total and utter harmonic fluency. Free Jazz. Bossa Nova. Vocal. M-Base. Electronic jazz. Straight ahead.
Whatever calls to you, you cannot deny it, and if you do, youre doing yourself a diservice, the same way you would be if you only explored for the sake of exploring. Playing ANY type of jazz music is an exploration, an adventure and offers its own kind of freedom, whether its blazingly atonal, or a chaos within structure type of ideal.
To finish this segment of my thoughts on this matter I would like to bring an example of what I consider to be a beautiful example of a confluence of elements that works beautifully.
The first track on pianist (and New School Graduate) Brad Mehldau's Largo (produced by Jon Brion), "When It Rains" is a superb example of what seemingly disperate elements brought together by one's vision and drive. The tune is a simple AABA form with a beautiful chordal sequence and and equally beautiful and simple melody. The groove of the tune is like a slow rock beat and the drums bass and piano are accompanied by what I believe to be a group bassoons/french horns (most likely arranged by Jon Brion). The feel as a whole is something of a pop tune, although the word 'pop' has a certain stigma I'm not intending. Think smart pop music or someone like well Jon Brion for one, Air, or Radiohead. Something like that.
After the intro sequence and stating the melody, Mehldau begins to improvise with little fragments and all for the most part diatonic to the key (B major). As the piece moves onward the lines begin to stretch and move in odd directions harmonically while maintaining the same playfulness of the melody and the tune's vibe. The second chorus grows with more rhythmic impositions and harmonic departure, all while the horns in the background keep the basic harmonic structure of the tune. The third chorus finds diatonic harmony until the end of bridge where cascades of notes rain up and down in and out less related keys. Mehldau ends the solo with a beautiful and logical phrase and the tune finishes until the outro (same as the intro) is repeated once more, this time with only Mehldau playing the chords along with the line.
Is this earth shattering innovative free music that sounds like NOTHING else and has no defined chord structure? No, of course not, but it is so utterly moving, captivating and beautiful that it doesnt matter, as it shouldnt. The artist followed the muse and the end result is a very unique amalgam of style and finesse that comes from both a reverence of classic jazz music and a respect and love for contemporary pop music. And you know what? It works, spinechilling well.
I highly recomend you check out the track. Brad Mehldau "Largo" on Warner Brothers.
I will write more later. I gotta sleep.
peace.