[The Fish]

I'm really new to jazz, so please excuse me if i sound ignorant, cause i am.

It seems to me that when playing jazz, everything you learn is bebop bebop bebop. Everyone is trying to sound just like Trane or Bird, or whoever.
I really love all that, and i know that so much of what happened in that era was groundbreaking and amazing, but that was like 50 years ago.

So basically what im saying is whats happening now? I know that since then jazz fusion and smooth jazz have emerged, but neither of those really do it for me. What/who is the leading edge in jazz today?

Sorry if this is just a dumb post...

 

[cleger]

Not a dumb post at all. A lot of people have a hard time seeing past the 50s when it comes to jazz. I would suggest exploring the e-music jazz section for some ideas.

The thing is, jazz is so much more fragmented than in the past. So I don't think you can really name one or two people who are the leading edge. There are probably hundreds who are leading edge in various off-shoots of jazz.

I personally am no expert, this is just what I have observed over the past few years of exploring this music.

 

[hakukani]

Post bop, Heavy Metal BeBop, bop resurgence?

Seriouly, if you can play bebop, you can probably play any style. It's really difficult.

 

[renaissance_man]

OR you could always just check out Ornette Coleman. He was really different...



(I love that guy.)

 

[kryz]

My teacher always tells me that if I/you/someone is a good bebop and has some skills and knowledge about classical music (=> sight reeding and dynamics) you'll be able to play any stile of music quite easy....

Maybe he is right

 

[clarnibass]

Seriouly, if you can play bebop, you can probably play any style. It's really difficult.

Not true. I know many players who can play bebop but are not good in many other styles. Sure there are people who are good in many styles, but usually these are their styles are not styels they are trying to copy. Coltrane is a good example. Any music that has improvisation has the same basic principles (i.e. improvise with a connection to the specific music) but the ideas could be very different so being able to play "correct" according to the "rules" of one style doesn't mean the same person will have a clue what to do in another, for example if the rules are not as obvious.

Fish are you interested in suggestions of things to listen to? If you are like someone said there are so many but a few people that I like a lot (out of many others!) are Louis Sclavis, Michel Poral, Evan Parker (mostly trio with Schlippenbach), Ganelin trio, etc.

 

[Reedsplinter]

It seems to me that when playing jazz, everything you learn is bebop bebop bebop. Everyone is trying to sound just like Trane or Bird, or whoever.

Two things: Past 1959 or so, by the time he's doing the famous work he did with the classic quartet, Coltrane is no longer playing bebop. The question "how do you get beyond bebop," if that's your objective, is readily answered by Trane's example; study his whole career carefully and you might discover some directions.

But the question "where's the leading edge in jazz today" is a very different matter. As far as I can tell, there ain't one. Which is maybe not a bad thing. Trane (among others) took us beyond bebop into "post-bop" or something; then a generation and a half have endeavored to take us somewhere else, and those efforts have been evolutionarily diffuse, it seems to me. Many directions have emerged, and while it might be argued that the predominant one for the past decade or so has been the Marsalis-generated "Hey, amoebas, let's all go backwards to the sea!" movement, none has prevailed. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. In fact, it parallels developments in virtually all the other arts. Literature, for instance, made a triumphant move into modernism (the bebop of writing), an angst-laden schlump into postmodernism, and then sublimated into a great diffusion. It's cool because there are many diverse voices -- but no giants.

That may be the way of the future in our culture. No more giants, for better or worse.

 

[docformat]

Fish

For someone who is new to jazz your comments your comments are very perceptive. The bop language rules the roost in what is generally known as mainstream jazz. However, as Reedsplinter says, outside that scene things are far more diffuse. Suggestions - try stuff on ECM or Impulse, and look out for people like Charles Lloyd, Dewey Redman, Jan Garbarek.

 

[Jaice Singer DuMars]

Here's my take on post-post-post-bop: http://www.jasondumars.com It is really a melding of classical, world music, jazz, avant garde with virtually no concern with attempting to fit a particular stylistic area. To me, it has all come down to music. Music is simply what it is.

 

[hgiles]

Listen to modern guys like Brecker, Bergonzi, Liebman, Berg and Mintzer. Obviously, they've studied and are adept at all styles including bebop. They're soloing tends to be an amalgam of all of what is good and interesting in all music.

Bebop playing, as difficult as it is, is sort of lick playing, language playing, quote playing, with roots in the blues. The more modern (chromatic) stuff is concept playing, motive playing, intervallic stuff, and although it's some inspiring improvisation it isn't weighted or biased toward blues (nor black (Southern African American) ).

 

[HOUSTON NONET]

If you can play great bebop why play anything else.

 

[cleger]

If you can play great bebop why play anything else.

Dunno, Coltrane and many others thought there was value in trying to build on their bebop roots...

What's wrong with trying to expand your horizons?

 

[HOUSTON NONET]

Dunno, Coltrane and many others thought there was value in trying to build on their bebop roots...

What's wrong with trying to expand your horizons?

I agree I was joking but it didn't translate to the forum well

 

[HOUSTON NONET]

Listen to modern guys like Brecker, Bergonzi, Liebman, Berg and Mintzer. Obviously, they've studied and are adept at all styles including bebop. They're soloing tends to be an amalgam of all of what is good and interesting in all music.

Bebop playing, as difficult as it is, is sort of lick playing, language playing, quote playing, with roots in the blues. The more modern (chromatic) stuff is concept playing, motive playing, intervallic stuff, and although it's some inspiring improvisation it isn't weighted or biased toward blues (nor black (Southern African American) ).

Agree-- Listen to modern guys like Brecker, Bergonzi, Liebman, Berg and Mintzer--- lot's of great playing there-- I would add Lovano

 

[LampLight]

Post bop, Heavy Metal BeBop, bop resurgence?

Seriouly, if you can play bebop, you can probably play any style. It's really difficult.

My teacher always tells me that if I/you/someone is a good bebop and has some skills and knowledge about classical music (=> sight reeding and dynamics) you'll be able to play any stile of music quite easy....

Maybe he is right

I'm no expert, but here's my two cents: In response to another thread, I decided to get "Jazz Improvisation: The Goal Note Method" by Shelton Berg and "How to Play Bebop" by David Baker. FWIW, both of these authors claim that bebop and post-bop styles are central to, or the basis for, most improvisation today. Berg goes further to explain jazz and classical music follow the same age old formula for melodic structure: Having important chord tones fall on strong beats.

 

[cleger]

I agree I was joking but it didn't translate to the forum well

Oops, sorry I guess I didn't pick up on the sarcasm. Those smilies do wonders

 

[JrSax]

listen to wynton marcellis personally i completely agree with his goal of reviving acoustic recording in jazz and jazz roots

 

[hakukani]

listen to wynton marcellis personally i completely agree with his goal of reviving acoustic recording in jazz and jazz roots

<rant alert>

I agree with Mr. Marsalis, except for the fact that he has a tendency to sound like a pseudo-intellectual poophead. I wish he would just apply the trumpet to his face and play the music.

All music is acoustic, even if it's source is electronic.

BTW, acoustic recording (meaning non electronic), hasn't been done since the early thirties. There's design problems with 'acoustic microphones'--aka megaphones.

 

[wersax]

listen to wynton marcellis personally i completely agree with his goal of reviving acoustic recording in jazz and jazz roots

You mean recording jazz performed with acoustic instruments only, right?

 

[wersax]

I do think that an understanding of beebop is necessary for a jazz musician. It's not that you'll get many chances to play "Scrapple from the Apple" or "Night in Tunisia" outside of school performances, (unfortunately), but that beebop is the "common practice period" for jazz as a whole. Unfortunately the listening public still doesn't get beebop and a great way to lose a gig is too play a bunch of hard-core bop. The jazz that I play, from the dinner sets of weddings and functions, to club and resturant jazz, requires a mix of standards, bossas, smooth jazz, pop tunes, etc. You can play "Billie's Bounce" or "Now's the Time"---a blues is always safe---but you end up playing very little of what I consider "real" Beebop............daryl