orpheus 10
I have enjoyed your comments on this issue . I too agree it is fruitless to debate what is or isn't "jazz". I have been listening to jazz for the better part of 4 decades(all types) and have seen it go through many changes, assimilating other forms of music to bring something new to the table.
I believe that jazz , at it's ESSENCE , does evoke change and evolution by the creative artists who participate. I believe it's part of the natural scheme of things.
Every night when a jazz musician gets on the bandstand he or she is changing the music they play. Every time they solo the music is evolving as they are playing differently than previous engagements.
A perfect example of a musician looking for change and a new direction is Miles Davis in 1959 when KOB was recorded. Looking for a move away from the chord changes of bebop which had dominated the music for almost 15 years he consulted with George Russell whose musical theory was based around scales.He bought in Bill Evans , who was also familiar with these theories and the freeing harmonically from chord changes allowed the music to expand melodically and creating a major change in jazz music. And these changes in the music have continued with styles labeled as "free jazz", "post bop" , "free bop", "jazz-rock", etc. BTW it is no surprise that Miles Davis dropped the term "jazz" when describing his music. It is well documented that many african-american musicians did not like the term jazz which was coined by whites who controlled the business .
I think where this discussion gets bogged down is in STYLISTIC differences. And as you said appreciation of music is subjective. I say if the music touches your heart and soul and you like it ,great. If someone else doesn't like it as you say "let it be"'.
An example of subjective response to music is frogman stating previously that Charlie Mariano was his favorite alto sax player (BTW I have been trying to dig into the archives to see what subjects were previously covered and contributors feelings on the subject) . I was impressed that he said he would not say Mariano is the "best" sax player as this would be a "dicey" proposition. This goes to the element of subjectivity. I like Charlie Mariano a lot but Art Pepper is my favorite alto player. But I also would not say he is the "best " in his category as this denigrates the contribution of others. I might try to explain why he is my favorite but that doesn't make him "better" than someone else's alto sax choice. This type of back and forth bickering that has been going on makes no sense. As you said "agree to disagree"
To label a group of musicians such as the latest generation as "changing the music so they could play it " suggests that these newer musicians are dumbing down jazz music. Which is in no way true. I agree with frogman when he said today's musicians are better trained than in the past and can do more different things . Does that make them better than musicians of the past ?Not necessarily.
I may make this point: that when jazz music changes stylistically that the listener may change how they listen to the music to be able to appreciate what the musicians are attempting to convey. Or to put it another way it takes a different set of ears to absorb and appreciate a new direction. Some people try and they get it , others try and the music does not resonate with them. I have been lucky to absorb and appreciate many of the new directions in jazz.
I don't want to go on forever so i will wrap it up. frogman I feel your frustration and appreciate your thoughts.
I would like to pose a question for anyone on jazz standards. Can participants in this forum name more "current " songs by artists they feel should be or are jazz standards? Or is the selection of jazz standard decided by the musicians themselves by those who play other frequently other's tunes? Just what is the process?
I appreciate the feedback of all.
