I have a hard time relating to modern jazz

[henryrobinett]

Yeah, and inevitably it does in one way or another. I don't see it as "moving forward" as an artistic expression is whole and complete in its own right. Art doesn't "advance" the way technology or science advances. Art is a relationship of experience between the artist and the audience; unlike science it does not hew to objectivity. But each generation of artists expresses something unique to them, their time and their circumstances. And the audience of their peers experiences that differently than an old fart like me will.

I liked the head of the tune in the first video but the guitar solo did nothing to engage me as a listener. I'm probably not the age those musician speak to, I am behind the times by a few decades. In the guitar solo there was, to my ears, a lack of dynamics and of storytelling. The guy's got chops galore- indeed, the whole band has superb chops and remarkable discipline to be that tight- but you also have to have something to say. Something I liked is that he resisted the tendency to overplay and just show off. But without something to say it just sounds like you swallowed the Slonimsky book. A lot of newer jazz suffers from this, IMHO the consequence of learning it in school instead of from records and on the bandstand. The results are different.

Someone else might hear it completely differently and that's good- I'm not necessarily right in my judgment.

You’re quite right according to your own judgement, which is totally right and totally fine.

I do think each age has its own art, it’s own sound and speaks to its own population. I tell my jazz history classes to try and supplement their study, when they read of an age, to listen to the music. That will give you a feel of the emotional tone of the period. It’s stamped on the songs and performances. It’s not a scientific advance but it’s definitely identifiable as a period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MarkRhodes]

Yeah, and inevitably it does in one way or another. I don't see it as "moving forward" as an artistic expression is whole and complete in its own right. Art doesn't "advance" the way technology or science advances. Art is a relationship of experience between the artist and the audience; unlike science it does not hew to objectivity. But each generation of artists expresses something unique to them, their time and their circumstances. And the audience of their peers experiences that differently than an old fart like me will.

.

I think there is another possibility. Or at least, something that many artists in the past have spoken about, and that's the sense of the great work that came before them and inspired them. Many artists have hoped to belong in the same company as previous generations of great artists. They hoped that, in the future, they would be seen as part of that "great conversation" (whether it be painting, music, or literature). Much great art in the past "answered" other (earlier) art in one way or another. I think the artists saw themselves as connected more to the greats who devoted their lives to an art than to the "general population". It wouldn't surprise me if many jazz composers, in their heart of hearts, would like to think that if Ellington and Basie could hear their new tune that Duke would smile and the Count pat his foot.

(For others, maybe Wayne Shorter and Herbie Hancock are models, or Miles and Coltrane. Bird and Diz.)

I don't think what is unique to our time and place is as important as what passes down through generations: a love of beauty, family, friendship, dedication to one's craft, the madness of love, pains taken to gain knowledge, joy, bracing poetry, the things you will fight for, the chilled sobriety of death, and of course, music. "A hundred years from today", as the song says, all those things will still matter. And I think Ellington and Basie will still sound good.

I don't think everyone feels this way about it. But I think it is a feeling many artists 100, 200, 500 years ago would have recognized. And I suspect many good artists 500 years from now will treasure the tradition they call their own.

[va3ux]

Stick with what you like. Why would you do anything else

The music in the vid doesn't do anything for me. Skilled, talented musicians for sure.

This player is incredible, its intimidating to listen to this level technical and concept prowess yet the music is hard to swallow for me. I feel almost guilty for still sticking with good old stuff (Grant, Wes etc) and not being able to get with the program so to speak. What emotion does that suppose to stir? Sorry for rambling lol. I am not criticizing by the way...just wondering out loud i guess

[Jazzstdnt]

We can lump music in with other arts if we really want to, or choose not to. It's not mandatory.

The notion that music does not advance or evolve seems ludicrous to me, considering the positively massive changes from the Renaissance to the mid 20th Century.

In fact, I think it's vital that composers and musicians keep pushing it, as it were, realizing all the while that there will be more misses than hits when it comes to historical impact........

And that's perfectly fine. As long as young musicians and composers aren't literally starving, they have the time to experiment, grow, and mature. Their contributions will be measured over the span of their careers.

[christianm77]

Screw all this philosophising I’m going to continue to post modern jazz things I like, cause it seems the op likes some of them.

I was playing a gig at a jazz fest yesterday and the bars Spotify was just going around a John Coltrane playlist. I know that sounds great but we had a three hour break and my head started to hurt.

So I changed the Spotify to Concierto for some refreshing Hall/Desmond/Chet coolness and the playlist ended up on this a few tracks later, that I thought rather beautiful. I’m embarrassed to say I never checked out the album:

[christianm77]

This very haunting

[grahambop]

I like this video of Kurt with a jazz orchestra/big band.

[Vladan]

This is just to thank OP for letting me know about Ben Eunson.

[ragman1]

Actually I didn't find that Rosenwinkle very 'out'. There were a few brief solo moments but, probably with a band that size, you can't go too far out. The harmonies of the tune itself are quite 'modern', or whatever the word is, so that provides a sort of different feel.

I like this from Schofield. Here he's alone and can do what he wants. Strangely it's not really the out moments that I find attractive, it's the blues feel.

But, you know, what is out? I suppose any note which isn't strictly diatonic is out. And even then... That natural B over the F in Happy Birthday is totally 'out' with the chord, except it's not, it's diatonic to C.

So what is out? And how far out has it got to be before the ear (of any rational person, I suppose) starts to object?

[ragman1]

Actually, it might not be a question of how far out but of how often. Repeated out sounds lose their impact, like over-seasoning food or eating the same thing all the time. The occasional surprising sound is interesting... but interesting all the time starts being unmusical.

[christianm77]

I might be wrong but to me Kurt Rosenwinkel is usually playing within whatever chord scale. I find his playing pretty modal a lot of the time.

His compositions can be quite ‘out’ in terms of what harmonies and line he writes.

[ragman1]

That's my point, that it's a band so one's probably constrained in what one can do. Too out and you lose the other players and possibly the tune. It sounds very like a modal tune anyway. Modal, of course, doesn't necessarily mean out unless the harmonies are very altered or disconnected in some way.

[Jazzstdnt]

So what is out? And how far out has it got to be before the ear (of any rational person, I suppose) starts to object?

Out is pretty old by now BTW, and no, it's not about a single note being out. There was another thread about "out". This one is about current style. Buts that's OK.

So - current styles? Modal predominates, everybody plays originals, a lot of it sounds aimless and lifeless when compared to more traditional forms and styles, and audiences are microscopic.

How does that summarize things?

[christianm77]

Out is pretty old by now BTW, and no, it's not about a single note being out. There was another thread about "out". This one is about current style. Buts that's OK.

So - current styles? Modal predominates, everybody plays originals, a lot of it sounds aimless and lifeless when compared to more traditional forms and styles, and audiences are microscopic.

How does that summarize things?

I would describe it as a massive oversimplification. I agree with some of it, it's true there's a lot of generic college jazz being recorded. But there's much more stuff going on than that would imply. It would perfectly possible to confirm ones prejudices and listen only to that stuff, but it doesn't make it true that that's all going on...

And just 0.1% of people on youtube like contemporary jazz, that's still an audience of 1,000,000 that you can reach... Technology makes a lot of niches viable...

Anyway, historically it's not the case that old = standards, new = originals. Blue Note albums are full of originals. Jazz started as a music of originals - Jelly Roll Morton for instance - standards (pop songs) didn't start coming in until the late 20s with Louis doing his thing. Here is Jelly Roll writing some out music.

Standards are great - evergreen vehicles for improvisation. Which is why musicians continue to play them:

And find new pop tunes to interpret:

Problem with standards is you play those and you will be forever hand to mouth... You need originals to make money from royalties. I bet if it became possible to copyright a jazz solo, jazz musicians would be happier recording standards. OTOH, nothing like a good contrafact.

Aimless and lifeless? Maybe... Not sure why. I know why the swing has changed, that's obvious.

[christianm77]

BTW, let not forget that for a large portion of today's listeners, the future of jazz is '70s jazz funk:

[Jazzstdnt]

Standards can be tired. And I understand the situation with originals and am not objecting to them at all. On the contrary, we need the music to advance, we want the music to advance, we want to hear something new and fresh. (like the late 60s and 70s, for example)
The problem of course, is that not everybody is so great at composing interesting works.

[KirkP]

I can appreciate the music in the top post. It’s skillfully played and original, but it’s not the kind of music I seek out or desire to play. I generally prefer to hear lyrical solos with phrasing dynamics & expression that connects with the human voice (like singing or conversation). Long strings of equal valued notes don’t do that for me. But that’s just a matter of taste. If I were in the audience for that performance I’d try to let go and immerse myself in it and would probably enjoy it.

[ragman1]

Out is pretty old by now

Quite so.

Modal predominates, everybody plays originals, a lot of it sounds aimless and lifeless when compared to more traditional forms and styles, and audiences are microscopic.

I was going to say that too but restrained myself. This tune is bland, in fact the whole album is pretty much the same. But, as Christian pointed out, it's not the only thing around.

[Toddep]

I got no kick against modern jazz...

[christianm77]

Except when they play it too damn fast

[pcsanwald]

You know, I'm a big Kamasi fan and enjoy the new album. But as I was listening to it, it struck me that the very thing that the album removes is the thing I love most about jazz: the undulating swing and rhythmic commentary of a master drummer. I pretty much got into jazz because of Tony Williams, Roy Haynes, and Elvin Jones, and in music today that is popular, there is virtually none of that rhythmic language. I understand why, to some extent, but that doesn't stop me from missing it.

[mr. beaumont]

I think the drumming on the new Kamasi record is outstanding.

Swing is more that a triplet feel...

[pcsanwald]

I think the drumming on the new Kamasi record is outstanding.

Swing is more that a triplet feel...

I love the drumming! my point is more around the style; it's not lost on me that one of my favorite aspects of jazz music is missing from the equation. Plenty of great jazz has been made with a drummer in the background (i.e. every lennie tristano record), but I still just miss the percussive commentary from time to time. I have no doubt that the exact thing that I love about the sound of it causes many people to not dig it; for example, my wife finds Tony Williams' ride cymbal variety "annoying".

[mr. beaumont]

There's a ton of "percussive commentary" on the new album!

Listen to the drumming during the synth solo on "Can You Hear Him?" Background? Hardly!

[Hep To The Jive]

Except when they play it too damn fast

I like fast, I don't like too damn out