Talking about jazz

[isaacs]

Coming back on the plane from Wangaratta I had an interesting conversation with Warwick Alder and Bob Gebert, two musicians I respect enormously.

Warwick was passionate about the proposition that the development of jazz ended in the 1950s. I mentioned that as a lad of 15 I was swept away by hearing Roger Frampton play in jazz the sort of harmony I had heard already in Stravinsky and Bartok (I heard McCoy, Herbie and Chick later).

Bob Gebert said that this sort of harmony was "all there in Art Tatum" anyway. While Art Tatum is an unparalleled genius who was way ahead of his time harmonically, I believe that the harmonic language of jazz was further developed in the hands of Bill Evans, McCoy Tyner, Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea, Keith Jarrett, Wayne Shorter and Kenny Wheeler to mention just a few.

Warwick said "it's all there in Duke Ellington". Again, Duke was a pioneer, but others that came later took the language further. Not necessarily "better", just further.

As well as totally respecting these guys as musicians I have an affection for them as people. And I've met their counterparts in classical circles, who say that classical music begins and ends with Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms, and all that romantic 19th century and modern 20th century stuff is just a diversion.

Classicists, pure and simple! God bless 'em.

Personally I think jazz further developed excitingly not only in the 1960s but in the 1970s too (fusion, the ECM school).

And beyond.

But the classicists keep the flame burning in another way. Good on ya anyhow Warwick and Bob!

[Kenny]

Interesting trip, Mark!

I can go both ways with this.

I am frequently amused by the the "gimme the new at all costs" demands of several denizens of the Jazz Corner bulletin board.

It often seems to me the people they champion have done little that is new for 20-30 years.

OTH, what has been labelled new in the past couple of decades can often sound like a New orleans revival band in fully cry.

Aren't terms such as progress and development pretty relative anyway?

It sometimes seems more cyclical than linear.

[isaacs]

Kenny, granted.

What I found worth remarking on was the view that the 50s was the last innovative period that mattered in jazz. And that all the important developments to come were already there in Tatum and Ellington.

Classicism I called it.

I think we can be clear about the 50s, 60s & 70s, and I think it is beyond dispute that there was genuine new developments in jazz in the 60s and 70s as well, not just the 50s. I'm used to the 70s being under dispute, as a lot of people don't think fusion or the ECM school are jazz, and this was where in my view the action was in the 70s. But the 60s? Coltrane quartet? Miles quintet?

Post-1980 let's wait and see what history says.

[Kenny]

admin said:

Post-1980 let's wait and see what history says.

Waiting? Bah!

Some speculation for 20-30 years hence:

*A certain trumpeter will be largely perceived, rightly or wrongly, as pretty much a blind alley. The svengali will be held responsible for neutering this talent.

*The death (in jazz terms) of the major labels will be seen as momentous, joyous and liberating - especially when considered in tandem with the internet.

*The final transformation of jazz from an American music to a planet music will be widely acknowledged and enjoyed.

*I'd make a smart-arse comment about EAI, but I don't have a clue what that is!