# Has jazz 'lost its way?'...open debate...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Re the debate on another thread, I decided to make a separate thread on this.

I read this article 20 years ago, and was able to find it online. In it, Australian jazz legend Don Burrows decried the (then) current state of jazz. I'm not taking sides here just using this as stimulus for a broad debate on the issue, esp. that jazz kind of became too academic and intellectual (esp. with bebop and the universities teaching it) & is now a 'museum piece.'

A long quote from the article (link to full article at the bottom) 

_Burrows belongs with the traditionalists. He is highly suspicious of book-learnt jazz, a view that ruffled feathers at the Conservatorium of Music, where for almost 10 years he headed the jazz department.

While he was at the conservatorium he fought against jazz becoming"blackboard music" and says that his fear is that young jazz players, like Olympic athletes, are obsessed with jumping higher and running faster than ever in history "to the exclusion of musicality."

In pessimistic moments he goes so far as to predict the end of jazz, which is what Louis Armstrong did when he dismissed Dizzy Gillespie as a "wrong-note trumpet player".

"I think some of the wrong things are being pursued today," Burrows said. "I think if it persists, then it will place a whole different requirement on an instrumentalist and it could conceivably reach a point where we need to drop the word 'jazz' and invent a new one."

George Golla, his closest friend and a musical soul-mate of 36 years, says that jazz as their generation plays it is "very near to being a museum piece"

"It depresses me a bit if I let it ... but Don and I cope with it in different ways. I don't get anywhere near as cross."

Burrows and Golla taught at the Conservatorium together for 10 years until 1990, with Burrows as the head of the jazz studies program. And as gigs go, it got tough towards the end.

When the conservatorium amalgamated with Sydney University and the jazz department lost its autonomy, Burrows resigned. It was an angry but not unexpected reaction.

Burrows and Golla lacked a formal music education and recognised qualifications. They also had a disdain for textbooks on jazz improvisation. The fact that Burrows had been declared an Australian Living Treasure during the Bicentennial year and that both he and Golla had achieved eminence as professional musicians and were loved by their students, did not save them.

"Don chose to resign but I got the bullet because they said I'm not qualified," Golla said.

"Don resigned as a protest against it but I had no choice, my position was made vacant. Those sorts of experiences are double-edged. It's bad for you in the sense that it probably shortens your life, but I think it's good for you too, because reality becomes a little clearer."

Burrows says that he doesn't want to speak publicly about the episode except to say that he decided to resign because he "wanted to go out the way he came in - as a player."

Golla says that despite a bitter ending, the Conservatorium years were good for Burrows.

"It's a good experience because I think that you learn the parameters of your influence," Golla said.

"You learn how far you can reach before it does no good. We also learned to have a wariness of bureaucracy because the Conservatorium is 99 per cent bureaucracy and 1 per cent music."
_

Source: Sydney Morning Herald
Friday August 14, 1992
Article by Deborah Cameron
http://www.drivewayalarms.com.au/driveway-alarms-articles/1992/8/14/the-player/


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I don't think jazz will ever become a "museum piece" as such, a genre such as that one (more like a whole world really since its so diverse) is historically an important link between western an non-western music. The evolution of jazz right from the very start with traditional African music shows some incredible influence in society throughout history. I agree that certain _types_ of jazz become out of date leading way for new ideas and new subgenres but that is all part of the evolution.

As for jazz being too academic/intellectual, I believe that sort of comment is more of a subjective statement. Jazz has taken influence from African music, Spanish music, classical music throughout its history and you can study it in an "academic" way just like any other type of music and it can turn out to be an intellectual style to some. I don't really know much about jazz, but listening to Charlie Parker doesn't really seem very intellectual.

Jazz today it seems to me (as an infrequent listener) has changed a lot. It has new influences, there are new subgenres (and it might blur with other non-jazz genres) but it still has the improvisational element which is common in all types of jazz. I don't think jazz is dead, I don't think it's out of date either. Jazz for me now is like a whole new inprovisational world of music still alive but less popular. It's still changing shape taking influence from other composers and genres and styles and cultures and making it its own. Jazz lives on, new audiences for new styles of jazz come and go and it is historically a very important part of this planet's music. That doesn't make it a museum piece, it makes it an incredible multicultural journey "intellectual" to some, but to others it could be some of the most inspirational art forms they've heard.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Jazz is great and always has been, but it has evolved so much that today's "jazz" certainly isn't yesterday's "jazz." The old Dixieland guys might've felt that way about what Louis Armstrong was doing in the later 20s, with solos featuring his improvisations rather than the band as a whole working together. Then evidently he did feel that way about bop, and for a while so did Ellington, though Ellington adapted to it pretty well.

Then I could imagine that some of the early bop guys might not've liked free jazz. I don't know anyone who felt that way, but it would not surprise me. Certainly a lot of them didn't care for jazz fusion, or whatever you'd want to call the stuff Miles Davis did in the 1970s and 1980s.

The term "jazz" is not something I would fight for - terms like that cause more than enough trouble. I love a line Miles Davis is supposed to have said when asked whether _Sketches of Spain_ was jazz: "I don't know, but it's music, and I like it." Or Duke Ellington supposedly said there are only two kinds of music: "Good music, and the other kind."

I'm all for that kind of perspective, especially just at the present moment, when it is so easy to find jazz / tango / classical / electronica / rock / hip hop all mixed up with traditions of Indian classical music, African drumming, Indonesian gamelan, Tuvan throat singing, and all the other folk traditions of the world. For the most part, "where it's at" for the really creative musicians of today is not in exclusive loyalty to a particular tradition, but in learning from each other and creating really new stuff.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Not really sure what you mean here, Sid (and I scanned the article, too). Jazz to me, by its very nature, _is _intellectual. Whether or not you wish to make it academic depends on what you want to do with it - after all folk music, under a musicologists microscope, becomes academic - or do you mean academic _figuratively_?

The fact is that jazz, as a modus operandi for creating music, places enormous theoretical demands on the performer; this is in addition to possessing the very highest levels of technical ability on the instrument. It is a sad fact that many competent classical players perform miserably when it comes to improvising.

The same historical, cultural and social forces that shape (and have always shaped) classical music exert a similar force on jazz music - no more, no less. Music is a reflection the world we live in. Have *WE* lost our way might be a more apt question...


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Jazz is long over as a forward-moving cultural force because it's as much about a certain time and ethos as the music. I know I might get flak for saying jazz is dead, but today's jazz--even if it's wild and avant-garde--exists in a totally different context from yesterday's jazz or popular music. It's insular and hobbyish, a novelty; it's not pumping any more lifeblood. The genre's innovations have been pillaged and carried on as early as the 60s by everything from free improv to Captain Beefheart. In a way jazz is still alive in its scope of influence, but its name is nothing more than a sunday religion at this point.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

'Lost its way' is interesting because jazz, more than I think many other genres, never had a way. It was always more about the meanderings or improvisations along the journey than about the destination. 

I think jazz shares a similar fate with modern classical: experimental, avant garde aspects became the most famous and significant which tended to drown out the more accessible that continued to be produced. Then when music hits a high point (or low point) of experimentation people see it as dead and set up the most noisy inaccessible tune as its headstone. It doesn't matter if jazz transforms or returns to older styles, it is now either regarded as a pastiche zombie or no longer jazz.

Nu jazz, trip hop, downtempo, electroswing and other genres are quite popular and continue jazz in new ways while there are still people making new music in the style of every past jazz era. Nothing is more likely to fossilise a genre than academic study, but only not listening will kill it. The fact there is ever more new types of music every year to compete with means that jazz gets squeezed.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm not worried about genres being fossilized. I don't approach music that way as a listener. I'm drawn to individual artists, bands that are playing creatively, and having some kind of musical conversation among themselves. And I'm also drawn to a group sound or aesthetic that sounds contemporary, and not like a rehash of the 50s & 60s.

If it seems like there's not much originality or innovation these days, part of the problem is that it's very hard for bands to get regular work and develop these aspects of their music. The days of numerous clubs in even relatively small cities are long gone.

I highly doubt that the Miles Davis Quintet, or Coltrane Quartet of the 1960s could have made great and influential music without playing a lot.

That said, there are numerous small jazz record labels that have been documenting exciting and creative music for the past four or five decades. Look beyond the back catalogs of Columbia or Blue Note, and you can find plenty of great music on labels such as Black Saint/Soul Note; ECM; Winter & Winter; Hat Hut; Tzadik; ACT; JMT; Srewgun; Thirsty Ear, etc...

There are some great artists/composers/improvisers/bandleaders from right here in my area in upstate New York. Tim Berne from Syracuse, who has a great new album (Snake Oil) on ECM, and my current favorite drummer/composer John Hollenbeck from Binghamton. He's making some great large ensemble music documented on albums like Joys & Desires; Eternal Interlude; Shut Up And Dance. As well as the Claudia Quintet recording for Cuneiform records.

This is where the action is as far as I'm concerned. I'm not interested in the conservative, derivative music being promoted by the major labels.


----------



## etkearne (Sep 28, 2012)

As a jazz fan and jazz musician (I play the electric bass in an acoustic setting), I don't agree with the person quoted in the original post. I feel that the natural evolution of jazz was to become formalized. That is just how things occur in the human world. They start informal and then progress as the mind explores the deepest corners of the new "thing" in question. How could one pass on the knowledge of advanced jazz harmony if they didn't use books or WRITING in some form?!

Anyways, I can tell you that most advanced jazz is based on harmonic structures associated primarily with the post-Romantic, pre-Atonal 20th Century, that is, "extended common practice". Seventh chords predominate (harkening Ravel and Debussy), quirky practices of using the secondary, tertiary, and quartiary dominants harkens to Wagner, and the rhythms harken to the Primitivism style (all except the glaring exception of unusual time signatures - most jazz is in 4/4). 

The thing that makes it "JAZZ" and not "extended common practice classical" is the improvisation. That is THE KEY TO JAZZ. A composer only lays down a set of chords on a piece of paper. The rest is up the the performers. The melody may be written down, played at the opening and the end (the head and tail as they call it) but other than that, it is ALL improvised. You are seriously PUT ON THE SPOT in jazz performance. It is intense, but greatly rewarding. It truly is musician's music more than audience music because mistakes DO happen and the tunes can go to rather unappealing places (except to the performers). 

So I think jazz is essentially equivalent to "harmonically advanced improvisatory music" but why not just call it jazz?

Caveat: I am referring to jazz which is called "straight-ahead-jazz". It is the type of jazz the average joe thinks of - people sitting around in a group jamming out on their instruments playing obtuse and angular solos over block chords and a walking bass line. I suppose "free jazz" can fit into my description, but only the type that still uses the "essentials" of an advanced harmonic language and improvisation. This doesn't include jazz-rock (which is mostly composed not improvised) nor "super-free" jazz (which can border on "noise music" which isn't a bad thing - it is just different IMO to jazz). In fact most jazz-ists call it "free improvisation" and not "free jazz".


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

"Lost its way" as if there is one way to do jazz music (or any sort of music). There is beautiful jazz music being made to this day, in various settings, in various styles ranging from extremely accessible to extremely complex, just as in other idioms. To say that an entire style of music is dead is silly hyperbole, an absurd, laughable notion.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Interesting discussion, and I think science's post is the one that I agree with a lot. Jazz is evolving. The other thing is that unlike classical, jazz is documented in recordings going way back to its early days. It might account for how its evolved so quickly and become so diverse in just about 100 years of its existence. Its as if we have the equivalent of 200 or 300 years of classical music compressed into 100 years. After bebop and fusion, it becomes more complicated. You got classical composers being heavily influenced by it (eg. the American Minimalists, and also Aussies like Matthew Hindson). & also here we got The Australian Art Orchestra which is a combination of classically trained and jazz musicians. I think they're still going, their leader is jazz pianist and arranger Paul Grabowsky.

My own taste in jazz is mainly mainstream. I don't like Dixieland (now, I consider that 'museum piece' stuff), but I'm okay with bebop, but I prefer its 'child,' hardbop (eg. Max Roach and Art Blakey). I don't like free jazz much. I like Monk, its probably as 'wierd' as I get. I also like West Coast jazz (like Mulligan and Getz), which is kind of what Don Burrows is similar to. & I'm also into European and Australian jazz.



BurningDesire said:


> ...To say that an entire style of music is dead is silly hyperbole, an absurd, laughable notion.


I think its more to do with the ageing demographic that's into jazz. There's some jazz joints around here, I've been to them ocassionally, and like classical concerts, most of the audience is over 40 or 50. I mean with this kind of ageing demographic, its easy to feel pessimistic about the future of jazz, its similar as with classical.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Just 2 cents:

The essence of Jazz is to blend, to incorporate, to mix and to melt along with different cultures, flavors and knowledges, never losing its strength, its vitality, its sound and its 'swing & riff'

Jazz is [a kind of] democracy.

Each 'voice' counts and has something to say, and it is said, and it is important what has been said, for the 'whole' of Jazz experience.

Jazz flows with the current.

From this, is that I think that there is no way that Jazz -if it is Jazz- can lost 'its' way.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I think its more to do with the ageing demographic that's into jazz. There's some jazz joints around here, I've been to them ocassionally, and like classical concerts, most of the audience is over 40 or 50. I mean with this kind of ageing demographic, its easy to feel pessimistic about the future of jazz, its similar as with classical.


But then you talk to a youngster who likes to improvise and listen to jazz herself, and knows many other fellow musicians interested in improv and jazz, knows a fair few young and old jazz musicians from various schools she has attended  And you see that not all hope is lost~


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Ondine said:


> Just 2 cents:
> 
> The essence of Jazz is to blend, to incorporate, to mix and to melt along with different cultures, flavors and knowledges, never losing its strength, its vitality, its sound and its 'swing & riff'
> 
> ...


Tao Te Jazz?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The Rise and Fall of Popular Music
http://www.donaldclarkemusicbox.com/rise-and-fall/index.php


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

My observations help me think that Atonal Jazz has made this genre quite unpopular. No wonder, as it's more horrible than atonal classic music!

I can say that the original 'Jazz' (& Blues) is merged with other genres like Country, RnB, and Soul, but it's not pure indeed.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Arsakes said:


> My observations help me think that Atonal Jazz has made this genre quite unpopular. No wonder, as it's more horrible than atonal classic music!


I know that there were some attempts in that direction but i don't think it's possible to improvise in a atonal way. There are some atonal third stream compositions, but i don't think that there's any jazz that could be considered atonal. If you mean free jazz that's true, is one of the reasons behind his unpopularity (altough i think that there are some great free jazz musicians).


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Yes 'Free Jazz' is the correct word.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I don't know if Jazz has lost it's way, but much of it loses me as a listener.

I LOVE certain types of Jazz and for me there is Vocal Jazz & Instrumental Jazz.

I like most Vocal Jazz music that is done in what I call a Classic or Bossa Nova style: Louis Armstrong, Johnny Hartman, Sarah Vaughan, Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Astrud Gilberto, Eliane Elias, Harry Connick Jr, etc. I can listen to stuff like that all day long. What little new "Vocal Jazz" music I hear these days I can deal with.

Instrumental Jazz though is a whole different Ballgame. There are so many sub-genres. 

I like the Classic Bop Jazz. Drums, Bass, Piano and a Horn or 2. Improvisation is definitely at the heart of Jazz but I enjoy it more over a simple motif. Take "So What" off of Miles Davis' Kind Of Blue. Simple, melodic, catchy, plenty of space to move around. When you get past "In A Silent Way" we get into a Fusion that becomes a constant blur of notes and there is no space left. There's no melody left either. It's down to a cold mathematical calculation to determine how many different chords are within the progression and I can't listen to it.

So as far as the original debate question. I don't know that Jazz can ever lose it's way because it's hard to define what Jazz is, but much of it lost its way to my ears long ago.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

If it is being methodically taught in a school program, it is no longer jazz. Really.


----------

