I read the article. I thought it was funny. It's clearly someone going overboard to object to the use of a word. But in some sense he makes some sense.
Coz I was born in 1958 and something had to give..................;}
I think that there is a case for saying that American Jazz had run out of steam from the 60's onwards. I am loathe to attend the local Jazz Club open night as it is stacked full of Jazz disciples who do their best to play complex and dissonant nonsense and call it improvisation, as if the 60's was still here.
On the other hand North European Jazz and other more contemporary styles of "jazz" - for want of a better word - seem alive and kicking - often with Far Eastern, folk, classical and rock influences. New Orleans Jazz had its moment, and that particular stream seemed to me to run dry somewhere in the 60's. Funk, Ska, Rock, Soul, Classical and other influences seem to have taken over since then, emerging as a more diverse form of "Jazz" - like some of my favourites: Jan Garbarek, Portico Quartet, Dave Stapleton, Eric Truffaz and many others.
I agree, there is a case for this. In fact, a lot of stuff I hear on the radio that is presented as "Jazz" doesn't sound anything at all like "Jazz" to me, especially in comparison with "Jazz" from the late 50's.
I just bought a new DVD by Stanton Moore, a Funk Drummer. (By the way, it's a super fantastic set of drumming examples for any drummers out there who are interested in funky grooves)
In these lessons, Stanton explains how funk evolved from Jazz. He begins with early funk drummers who got their core idea from having played Jazz. And far more interestingly Stanton actually plays examples that morph from one style into the other.
A one point he starts out with civil war march drumming on a snare, playing it straight then he morphs that into the "New Orleans Second Line" drumming with a swing field, he then moves on hand up onto the ride cymbal and morphs that into "Jazz" drumming. He continues on to morph those Jazz beats into Funk, and shows how Funk itself has evolved along from that.
So Jazz (at least as a drumming groove) is just a phase of a long process of drumming evolution. The rest of what made "Jazz" what is was in the late 50's was indeed the contribution of the artists who played chromatic instruments and offered their improve to those Jazz grooves.
What makes "Jazz" really?
The groove? The improv? The form? The artists themselves?
It's probably a combination of all these things. And the cold hard truth of the matter is that the artists die off and as generations change new artists begin to bring totally new things into the music.
So one thing that's for sure. The Jazz of the late 50's is indeed dead and gone. It was what the musical artists did at that period in time. It can be copied, emulated, and even expanded upon to a degree. But how far can it be "morphed" before it becomes "Funk", or "Bee Bop", etc.
At what point has it morphed enough to lay claim to a totally new label?
What prevents "Jazz" from becoming Funk, Bee Bop, Blues or whatever?
The lines between these genres has always been a massive blur to me.
