It must be the lawyer in me, but can anyone define "contemporary jazz". I just thought any jazz recorded not long ago or as we speak was "contemporary jazz". I take the odd stab at recordings well received by Downbeat, depending on the comments made, not just the rating. Seldom do I buy newer stuff, however. Why? It just seems to me that jazz was more leading-edge in previous decades. I like the way the quality of performance and the quality of recording line bisected in the late fifties and in the sixties. The more recent stuff too often sounds like a hybrid to me. Yes more "product" than "music". When I want "rock", I go for rock, when I want "pop", I go for pop (thing is I never want pop, it seems)and how about "space music", is it jazz just because it sounds complex and phasy?. I have not listened to ECM stuff in a long while. Some I have enjoyed in the past Eberhard Weber, Kenny Wheeler, Jan Garbarek come to mind. I even listened to avant-garde stuff, and found it difficult to love (Art Ensemble of Chicago, Don Pullen). They get respect, as far as I know. Can anyone out there put names to those contemporary jazzers that have a Dangerfield complex? Are we dealing with fusion and other attempts at getting more people under the tent or at music that pushes the envelope without leaving emotional and spiritual content out?
