Playing the saxophone How do you justify jazz?

[lydian]

View: https://youtu.be/VMcqKyfnT2Y

 

[Dr G]

If you want to lure someone into listening to jazz, play them something that is innately good and doesn’t require “understanding” to appreciate. There is still a lot of Coltrane and Kenny G that I just don’t care to listen to.

 

[Pete Thomas]

play them something that is innately good

Does this imply that quality (at least where music is concerned) is objective?

 

[Tenor Viol]

I think jazz has some of the same issues as classical music. The terms have been twisted to fit a very wide range of styles and sub-genres. The terms are used to broadly describe an entire world made up of many different things.

Technically, 'classical' music is that written in a structured 'classical' style from about 1750 to about 1820, i.e. after baroque/rococo and before romantic (otherwise known as 'gothic' in other art forms).

In reality the term is used to cover any style of 'art' music from the renaissance to the present day.

Getting people interested in classical music is as challenging as it is for jazz. What motivates people varies from person to person. As a young teen, I liked Beethoven, Mozart, and Tchaikovsky. By my late teens I was seriously into anything baroque. By my early twenties you can add renaissance and Mahler...

I've introduced people to classical music. If they come from a heavy rock type background, they tend to like the 'big' stuff by Tchaikovsky, Richard Strauss, Mahler, Rachmaninov... Some like to hear virtuosity... and so on.

People respond in different ways and the best you can do is try out some different styles/types of music and see which style tickles their interest, and then take it from there.

I personally do not have much interest in hard bebop or Coltrane - I've tried listening to that, but it does nothing for me.

 

[Pete Thomas]

I think jazz has some of the same issues as classical music. The terms have been twisted to fit a very wide range of styles and sub-genres.

Yes, absolutely. And both genres have easy listening and difficult listening.

In reality the term is used to cover any style of 'art' music from the renaissance to the present day.

I would have thought it's more accurate to say Western art music?

Getting people interested in classical music is as challenging as it is for jazz.

OK, next thread: How to you classical music?

 

[Pete Thomas]

I wonder if I'm the only person to admit that in my youth I listened to (and bought albums of) Coltrane and Albert Ayler because it was cool to do so. I do not included Ornette Colman because I do very much still appreciate him. As well as Dolphy and (wait for it...) Joe Harriott. (underrated Jamaican born UK player)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPLC5Xf5nWk

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYDiYTRjdV0

 

[Wade Cornell]

There's lots of contradictions in trying to define jazz. It was mentioned that its a growing continuum (words to that effect). Well it was until around the 1980s with players moving away from playing "standards" to creative new music that incorporated improvisation (think ECM). What happened next was this snap-back (caused by pedagogues "teaching" jazz?) which put it back to the 1950s and playing standards.

Nothing wrong with those tunes and they have a solid place in history. How you play them and the fact that they are "standards" for jazz improvisation is potentially a problem. They were, in their time, clever variations on tunes everybody knew. Fast forward 70 years and how many people on the street can hum any of the American Songbook standards? So the first point of reference is gone.

"Jazz" players keep playing the same tunes ... why? Easy, so that they can "improvise" on something they know really well and have practiced/memorized. That sort of improvisation sounds like an oxymoron especially if you're reading a chart that gives you the chords and you can just play "cut and paste" well practiced riffs and arpeggios.

So what does a neophyte hear when trying to get into jazz by regularly going to jazz jam nights? People playing the same tunes with each player taking turns trying to impress others with their technique and TAKE praise. Does that sound like entertainment? That's pretty hard to "justify" as something to entice an audience.

What's missing? Being in the 21st century and trying to GIVE an audience a fresh experience... entertainment, creativity, music that communicates stories (vocals), emotions, grooves, or makes you want to dance.

Players who didn't play standards, like Jan Garbarek's group filled the Albert Hall. When/if jazz students and players decide to move ahead there could still be a justification as there is always a demand for music that GIVES to their audience.

Justifying playing standards, of course isn't necessary if that's what you love doing. Just don't have any expectations about there suddenly being an interested public.

 

[Pete Thomas]

Well it was until around the 1980s with players moving away from playing "standards" to creative new music that incorporated improvisation

? I would have said the 1960s

"Jazz" players keep playing the same tunes ... why? Easy, so that they can "improvise" on something they know really well and have practiced/memorized.

Yes, I agree with that. And IMO it has both positive and negatives. Positive in that there's an immediate situation for people to make music together without rehearsal or sheet music. ie spontaneous jam sessions. negative in the restrictiveness of the format.

Justifying playing standards, of course isn't necessary if that's what you love doing. Just don't have any expectations about there suddenly being an interested public.

This is especially true if we are talking about tunes from around 80 - 100 years ago. Not that there aren't people interested in the old stuff. I certainly am but perhaps a minority.

 

[JSL]

I gave up years ago trying to get others to 'appreciate' (I put that in quotes because for me, my love of jazz is far more than appreciation) jazz. However, early on, in my youth, I did turn on a few friends to jazz by simple osmosis, getting them to go to a jazz club with me and see the music live, and also by constantly playing jazz albums (yes, vinyl, well before CDs & streaming came along).

For jazz music (and probably other genres) I would say that being at a live performance is much more likely to create a spark than being given a playlist or an album.

Totally agree. I grew up listening to live jazz and was lucky enough to get the opportunity to hear so many of the greats still alive and playing in the '70s-'80s. For me, many of those performances were mind-blowing experiences, as we used to say back then. I also had numerous recordings to listen to, as well as the local jazz station, but the live music was the 'real thing'.

I wonder if I'm the only person to admit that in my youth I listened to (and bought albums of) Coltrane and Albert Ayler because it was cool to do so.

You're not alone Pete. I'll raise my hand.

To answer the question, if I was introducing someone to jazz, I'd probably start with the funky, bluesy end of the jazz spectrum.

 

[lig]

I’ve never had to “justify” jazz. We play a lot of what many might consider to be jazz but I never, ever call myself a jazz musician.

I think Duke got it right when it comes to music classification.


"There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind".

99.999% sure that everyone here has heard this but there might be that 0.0001 reader out there 😀

 

[Nick Wyver]

"There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind".

There are two kinds of music: music you like and music you don’t like.

 

[lig]

Better than Country and Western. 😀

 

[Wade Cornell]

? I would have said the 1960s

The point was that it was moving forward up until the 1980s then snapped back. Sorry if that wasn't clear. It certainly was changing in the 1960s and 70s and incorporating a lot of influences that kept the music fresh and moving forward.

A good question would be: Where would jazz be now if it hadn't had that "snap-back". It lost it's audience and purpose in retreating back to a mechanistic academic version of 1950s improvisation.

 

[Pete Thomas]

The point was that it was moving forward up until the 1980s then snapped back

It lost it's audience and purpose in retreating back to a mechanistic academic version of 1950s improvisation.

I definitely agree with that

 

[Tenor Viol]

Yes, absolutely. And both genres have easy listening and difficult listening.

I would have thought it's more accurate to say Western art music?

OK, next thread: How to you classical music?

I meant to say 'western art music' but forgot

 

[Dr G]

Whatever happened to the music that everyone could listen to and enjoy?

Ever listen to Ella Fitzgerald’s take of “Mack the Knife” from the “Live in Berlin” album (1960)?

Yeah, the one where she forgot the lyrics and still brought down the house.

 

[JayeNM]

How do you justify jazz?

OK, so, now, really...Pete...your interesting choice of title semantics....you aren't trying to stir the pot some ?😎

 

[Wade Cornell]

OK, so, now, really...Pete...your interesting choice of title semantics....you aren't trying to stir the pot some ?😎

Maybe just attempting to re-balance the ingredients in the pot to make something palatable to a few more folk.

 

[JayeNM]

So what I would say is this....not to 'justify' but more in the vein of "Hey Johnny (and Jenny), here is why Jazz can be an interesting and exciting genre to play and listen to !"

1) Jazz, unlike man other contemporary genres...involves itself heavily with improvisation. So a recording, or live performance, will have the exciting dynamic of you watching/listening to a group of players who are literally, on the fly, creating a solo (or even an entire ensemble piece) which does not adhere to what they did last time, necessarily. Literally you are witness to that creative process, or you are (if a player) creating and participating in it.

*I understand some may say "well Jazz isn't the ONLY genre that exhibits this"...and that would be true...improv exists in a lotta genres " and that's true but in 'western' music it is one of the first which we associate with improv.

So if you like that idea...the idea of either listening to people create on the fly, or create notes and phrases on the fly...the element of spontaneity....then you may appreciate Jazz.

2) Jazz requires, and a fairly high level of musical competency. It is challenging to play, and I recall Wayne Shorter once saying in an interview "It is challenging to listen to"...but like other challenging sectors, be they visual arts, sports, or even academia...there is a fulfilling payout at the end of those achievements..from a spiritual and personal standpoint.

3) IT is a genre that HAS HAD the ability to evolve and morph from something which became for a while, conventional or standardized, into something ELSE (although it has NOT done this for around 50 years now, remember it morphed from Dixie to Big Band/Swing, to Bop with some branches off of that including "West Coast", to "Outside" and Jazz Fusion...those were all exciting artistic leaps ). Perhaps there are more leaps in store in the future.

4) You can say stuff like "that was hip", or "I know that cat !" or "c'mon, guys, get it togetha'....we're swingin' like a lead toilet seat !" or "yeah he (she) likes to take it a little outside"...and it'd be completely normal ....and cool.....(you try that without being a jazz musician and it'd just be ...totally....beat).

There...off the top of my head......

(yeah,I was improvising this response...)

 

[mark_addy]

4) You can say stuff like... "yeah he (she) likes to take it a little outside"...

That one always makes me laugh. There ought to be a joke about a player (well, it could be me) with the nickname 'Oates'. 'I am just going outside and may be some time'...