Is it Jazz?
Posted by: christian u on 01 June 2013
I mean jazz. I don't mean rock and roll. I mean the never-the-same-way-twice music the American black people gave the world.
on another topic someone asked if Diane Krall is Jazz.
I replied with two video's with Cassandra Wilson,Carmen Gomes and Dianne Reeves singing Bruce Springsteen and The Beatles,and the famous Kurt Vonnegut quote.
her is the link to the 2 video's to kick of what I hope will become a fruitful discussion.
Is this Jazz?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cESlSxcBEdo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cGwrlGzwcM
..mhmmmmmm, music doesn't follow the traditional definition of genres anymore. Pop has become jazz and jazz has become pop. I think at the end not the definition counts, but only your personal enjoyment when listening counts. Jazz or not jazz.
and back in the 40's there was an almost violent discussion if BeBob was to be considered Jazz.
wikipedia has quite an extensive article on the history and different era and styles of jazz.
It say about Krall:
" A number of new vocalists have achieved popularity with a mix of traditional jazz and pop/rock forms, such as Diana Krall, Norah Jones, Cassandra Wilson, Kurt Elling and Jamie Cullum."
check this one!Gil Scott Heron ''Is that Jazz?"
forum member Fat Cat posted it on another topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X0pIioIc5lk#!
and back in the 40's there was an almost violent discussion if BeBob was to be considered Jazz.
He wasn't.
G
Well, it is arguable that Jazz has more or less, covered its creative course by the time Miles hits his electric period in the early 70s. That's like a 40 years span if you start from say Dixieland, to Coleman Hawkins to Ornette to Coltrane. Pretty large range and time span if you think that rock music is pretty much exhausted after a decade and punk after the first 4/5 years.
Personally I think there is still creative juice with the New York downtown, Braxton and co end of 70s, the first ECM decade, maybe to mid 80s Bill Dixon and European Free Improv. But that's more or less it.
The stuff that comes out now by well trained musicians on highly capable recording equipment is just a poor recitation of what's been said many many many times before. It's a bit like putting an expert singer producing tons of Sinatra-like tunes in 2013, or an expert painter do one or a hundred Picasso paintings now. Maybe enjoyable, and technically perfect (whatever that means), but lacks all substance and all soul. IMO it is just a product of pop art.
Is it bad or good? I am not sure it matters, as much as I don't think it matters if it is jazz or not.
well, I hope all this makes sense, as I was in a bit of a hurry, and this is a big subject.
P.S.
big jazz fan here BTW.
P.S.2
I consider what one Mr Halliwell (who occasionally posts here) recorded a few years back (as +minus for instance), a lot closer to jazz, than what comes out as jazz on public forums today. (Even though he will probably debate that).
The stuff that comes out now by well trained musicians on highly capable recording equipment is just a poor recitation of what's been said many many many times before. It's a bit like putting an expert singer producing tons of Sinatra-like tunes in 2013, or an expert painter do one or a hundred Picasso paintings now.
Well, it is arguable that Jazz has more or less, covered its creative course by the time Miles hits his electric period in the early 70s. That's like a 40 years span if you start from say Dixieland, to Coleman Hawkins to Ornette to Coltrane. Pretty large range and time span if you think that rock music is pretty much exhausted after a decade and punk after the first 4/5 years.
Personally I think there is still creative juice with the New York downtown, Braxton and co end of 70s, the first ECM decade, maybe to mid 80s Bill Dixon and European Free Improv. But that's more or less it.
The stuff that comes out now by well trained musicians on highly capable recording equipment is just a poor recitation of what's been said many many many times before. It's a bit like putting an expert singer producing tons of Sinatra-like tunes in 2013, or an expert painter do one or a hundred Picasso paintings now. Maybe enjoyable, and technically perfect (whatever that means), but lacks all substance and all soul. IMO it is just a product of pop art.
Is it bad or good? I am not sure it matters, as much as I don't think it matters if it is jazz or not.
well, I hope all this makes sense, as I was in a bit of a hurry, and this is a big subject.
P.S.
big jazz fan here BTW.
P.S.2
I consider what one Mr Halliwell (who occasionally posts here) recorded a few years back (as +minus for instance), a lot closer to jazz, than what comes out as jazz on public forums today. (Even though he will probably debate that).
but yann
there must be some younger, jazz musician or group that you find worthwhile i.e.
Branford Marsalis, Kurt Rosenwinkel Cassandra Wilson,Carmen Gomes,Holy Cole,Gregory Potter,Chris Potter....... or ?
I consider what one Mr Halliwell (who occasionally posts here) recorded a few years back (as +minus for instance), a lot closer to jazz, than what comes out as jazz on public forums today. (Even though he will probably debate that).
Interesting point Jan. I'm fanatical about jazz, but for me jazz was, and is always, about innovation and new ideas. I think to a degree you are right, the musicians that really took the language forward ended up in areas that most people wouldn't call jazz. I'm thinking of people like Evan Parker, Derek Bailey, Peter Brotzmann, John Butcher, Keith Rowe etc.
I can listen to Andrew Hill, Eric Dolphy, Ornette Coleman, John Coltrane all day, but I really don't hear the freshness, ideas and vitality of their music in contemporary jazz today.
..mhmmmmmm, music doesn't follow the traditional definition of genres anymore. Pop has become jazz and jazz has become pop. I think at the end not the definition counts, but only your personal enjoyment when listening counts. Jazz or not jazz.
I totally agree with Bert...
Been lstening to what is called jazz for the past 20 years and for me, the question remains: What is jazz today, really? There's a world of difference between Diana Krall, John Surman, William Parker and Jan Garbarek... All four fall under the vast category of jazz but not much ressemblance between Krall and Parker, for example.
But as a personal answer the OP's question, technically, a jazz song or music should include a part of impro and there aint much impro in those two videos. So for me, it isn't jazz. I love Cassandra Wilson - I have pretty much all she's done in the past 15 years - and she's capable of good jazz moments ( notably in her live recording Silver Pony ). I truly like her music, Her voice and the emotions she puts in. Call it jazz, folk or R&B, I simply call it music.