[skeller047]

Worth noting it was written in 2011, so thats a while back now...to me it seems to be as, other have said a stream of consiousness, poetry kind of thing...

Here's him playing with Emmet Cohen a few days ago, at 1:10:00 he sings a song with lyrics "Jazz in a four letter word" but doesn't expand on it much though...Nicholas Payton with Emmet Cohen

Some pretty great grooves, forsure.

Time is funny. That wasn't a few days ago, it was less than 24 hours ago. And look how much we are all talking about Mr. Payton! Seems like we've been talking for days!!!!

I guess he can play then . I've got Gumbo Nouveau on right now. Still sounds fresh, and I got that album when it came out. I've been talking about him at work, and three other ppl said they watched last evening's live stream. What a mark to leave on our hearts...

 

[Serafino]

Concepts are like apps. Some are incredibly useful. Some are marginal. Some will damage the process. Learn how to measure the connection to reality of your concepts, and judge the ones you use, or you are no better than an infant picking up a random thing off the floor and eating it because you have a hand and a mouth and it is there.

 

[Michael_A]

Time is funny. That wasn't a few days ago, it was less than 24 hours ago. And look how much we are all talking about Mr. Payton! Seems like we've been talking for days!!!!

I guess he can play then . I've got Gumbo Nouveau on right now. Still sounds fresh, and I got that album when it came out. I've been talking about him at work, and three other ppl said they watched last evening's live stream. What a mark to leave on our hearts...

In my initial post I didn't mention that have a bit of doubt about all that is in article from a decade ago is still intact in NP's mind, but who knows...

 

[whamptoncourt]

Not much in this article I disagree with. The way jazz is too often taught is referencing back to the 1950s. Why? Life and the arts move ahead. If you're creative and moving forward what's the point of learning and being stuck in a 1950s style? It's good to appreciate and recognize the history. It's even better to move forward and create new music. Our job as musicians/entertainers is to be in the present and giving audiences an experience they can relate to. Play and enjoy what you want for yourself, but don't complain when the public isn't interested in those who are stuck in the past.

 

[Saxydude]

....don't complain when the public isn't interested in those who are stuck in the past.

You've got it exactly backward: those complaining do so because the public, largely, isn't interested in hearing their "Postmodern New Orleans music" and prefer "old" (pre-1960) jazz.

"Man, I lost my winery/restaurant/lounge gig because my playing just isn't modern enough" simply does not happen.

 

[Michael_A]

You've got it exactly backward: those complaining do so because the public, largely, isn't interested in hearing their "Postmodern New Orleans music" and prefer "old" (pre-1960) jazz.

"Man, I lost my winery/restaurant/lounge gig because my playing just isn't modern enough" simply does not happen.

who really knows the truth?

 

[NuclearSax]

You've got it exactly backward: those complaining do so because the public, largely, isn't interested in hearing their "Postmodern New Orleans music" and prefer "old" (pre-1960) jazz.

"Man, I lost my winery/restaurant/lounge gig because my playing just isn't modern enough" simply does not happen.

This is an interesting point. Of course there's an audience for "Postmodern New Orleans music," but I can't help but agree the majority of the public who is into "jazz" is probably into "old jazz." My brother in law is a professional saxophonist in Australia, and I'd say his music is certainly more modern jazz... but he seems to get along well enough, so there must be a market there. I just know that when I'm driving home, and something more along the lines of "Postmodern New Orleans music" comes on the radio, I often find myself thinking "what on earth am I listening to?!"

 

[PenPotter]

I read more about Nicholas Payton. And found this:

----Payton's writings are provocative. One of his most notable pieces to date, "On Why Jazz isn't Cool Anymore"[3] describes the effects of cultural colonization on music. The article quickly earned his website 150,000 page views and sparked international press attention and debate.

Then read the actual "On Why Jazz isn't Cool Anymore":
On Why Jazz Isn't Cool Anymore | Nicholas Payton (wordpress.com)

Who can disagree?
I remember here on forum very interesting discussion with 2 completely opposite opinions about JAZZ.
What surpised me that each opiinion was right for me.

Could not agree more with the essay (or is it a poem?). When any art locks itself behind gates it starts to die. It becomes the dead possession of those who always try to own things.

Just try saying The Rolling Stones are a jazz band (legit, and blues, and other genre) and the jazz gatekeepers come out waving their anxious arms. When it would benefit everyone to remain calm about categories and get excited by sound.

Music is so much more interesting when creativity leads revolution. After revolution, the bourgeoisie return with all their petty hoarding regulations.

 

[Michael_A]

Really loved to read all opinions here...
IMHO, don't think that the JAZZ is "dying" more than classical music.
For the last 25 years I watched many Jazz stars and Classical soloists (World Class Stars).
Often jazz concerts were in the same Maison Symphonique de Montreal. In 90% jazz concerts "attracted" full or about full concert hall,
when classical performances barely half +/- ... what does it mean? It was always my visual note...

I think that with "todays" music, it's methods of distribution and etc, young generation simply skip the notion of classical or jazz music in general.
Somewhere until 2007 I never went to the jazz concerts of young musicians. Because during 10 days of our yearly jazz fest there were for sure 3 Super-Stars.
I started to watch "young" jazz with Hiromi Uehara... I always felt that the young jazzmen simply not provide me a feeling of Real Jazz. I felt it's more artificial (well, well studied).

In 2018 I met Emmet Cohen with his trio that accompanied Benny Golson. Absolutely loved him. Bought his CDs. Listened more.
And watch what happened (to me ). Now for more than a year I watched so many extremely talanted and most of the time unique young people at Emmet's Place.

Personally, I think the Jazz is absolutely alive. Different? Sure. Like a TV from 50th to today.

 

[Serafino]

[ ... ]
Music is so much more interesting when creativity leads revolution. After revolution, the bourgeoisie return with all their petty hoarding regulations.

Do revolutionaries not create petty hoarding regulations? It's the problem with categories again. Petty regulations come from people who don't understand the human life process and those come in many different flavors including revolutionaries (history is brimming with examples) as well as some of the bourgeois. But the bourgeois also includes innovators who need (and seek) a free environment in which to innovate. If your only categories are "revolutionaries" and "bourgeoisie" you are in the same position as a person whose only tools are a hammer and pliers when presented with a screw: you can't respond to the situation appropriately. Concepts (categories) are the tools of thought, if you don't have the right ones you can't do the job.

 

[Alan H]

If "Jazz is Dead" because there's a tradition within which people learn to play, then I assume you know... Beethovens music is utterly irrelevant. Dead as a doorknob. And that Mozart guy? Waste of space.

 

[whamptoncourt]

If "Jazz is Dead" because there's a tradition within which people learn to play, then I assume you know... Beethovens music is utterly irrelevant. Dead as a doorknob. And that Mozart guy? Waste of space.

Exactly! When you are recreating something of the past your audience becomes extremely limited. Not necessarily dead, but strictly for people who like that period/style or aficionados who listen for nuances of the performer. Everybody should play and listen to what they like. Just don't expect that your efforts in learning that style and all the work you put into it will guarantee you an audience... or a living.

Alan, you may have been trying to be sarcastic, yet like many here fail to recognize being stuck in 1950s time warp. The music business is about entertaining people. If playing music is just a pastime, no matter. If you're studying to be a pro and fuylly emersed in the academic world of jazz teaching, then you're not headed in a direction that's likely to make you a living. Some may think that a rigorous jazz study prepares you for playing anything, but it's just not true. We are what we practice and play. Genres that may not be as technically difficult still require understanding the style and developing the phrasing and rhythmic patterns which fit. Jazz did move forward with fusion, acid jazz, ECM styles, etc. How they are named doesn't matter. The point is that playing standards (tunes that few people under 70 know) for the purpose of showing off your chops in a technical manner, just isn't appealing to the vast majority.

There's already been a lot of discussion about how and why academics adopted 1950s jazz as a model to teach. It takes a lot of work and practice; it's amenable to formulation (through analysis of what those players did), so can be graded on a basis of confirmation to those principles. Unfortunately creativity and taking the music further don't seem to come into it as those are subjective areas which academic shy away from (not easily graded). So the teaching, and thus students, are stuck in a 1950s rut.

Old saying: When you're digging a hole and find that you can't get back out the first thing to do is "stop digging".

 

[Laggszboy]

Payton's got a huge axe to grind. Doesn't mean he's not provocative, or even smart. Just means.... what are you really getting from his writings? How has it helped you personally? (Right, I didn't think so...)

 

[Alan H]

This is a SAXOPHONE forum....with forays off into clarinet, flute and related instruments.

Saxophone.

What's popular to the vast majority of people? Oh...Taylor Swift. Rihanna. Name popular musicians, names that "most people" people would recognize...they're all singers. At least since about 1950, they're all singers. The vanishingly few instrumentalists are all guitarists. Nobody knows who the bass player and the drummer are, and NOBODY knows who is laying down all those synthesizer lines that fill everything out.

Think of the biggest saxophone "popular hits' of the past 40 years....The solo on "Baker Street" is an example. You and I might know who played that solo, but who else does? In popular music, the saxophone is an 8 -12 measure instrumental break, added by the engineer to the mix for variety...that's it. Maybe the only exception to that was Clarence Clemons and Bruce Springsteen.

You know the popular TV and internet show "The Voice"? Why is there no show called "The Saxophone"?

There's a video game called "Guitar Hero"...there is no "Saxophone Hero".

Even in church, I know that people want to hear singers. They want to hear the human voice. As a clarinetist and saxophone player, "it's nice" if I play for special occasions to add a little color, but while I've written quite a few tunes for offertories and so on, NOT ONE TIME has anybody waxed rhapsodic about a tune I've written, or a harmonization I've done, but boy oh boy have I gotten kudos for some of my lyrics.

If the main concern here is to "be relevant to the greatest number of people in this modern age" then put down your saxophone and take singing lessons. Alternatively, learn pentatonic blues scales on electric guitar. That's it. for about 85% of the western world, and North America, for sure....there is nothing else musical and contemporary that matters.

I'd say, if you want to play saxophone, play it because you love it.

 

[Alan H]

Despite my apparently impassioned writing in the above post, in fact I don't think about this much any more and it doesn't upset me. It used to....I got over it. Folks like what they like; I like what I like. If those two data sets don't overlap much, then shrug...no biggie.

 

[whamptoncourt]

This is a SAXOPHONE forum....with forays off into clarinet, flute and related instruments.

Saxophone.

What's popular to the vast majority of people? Oh...Taylor Swift. Rihanna. Name popular musicians, names that "most people" people would recognize...they're all singers. At least since about 1950, they're all singers. The vanishingly few instrumentalists are all guitarists. Nobody knows who the bass player and the drummer are, and NOBODY knows who is laying down all those synthesizer lines that fill everything out.

Think of the biggest saxophone "popular hits' of the past 40 years....The solo on "Baker Street" is an example. You and I might know who played that solo, but who else does? In popular music, the saxophone is an 8 -12 measure instrumental break, added by the engineer to the mix for variety...that's it. Maybe the only exception to that was Clarence Clemons and Bruce Springsteen.

You know the popular TV and internet show "The Voice"? Why is there no show called "The Saxophone"?

There's a video game called "Guitar Hero"...there is no "Saxophone Hero".

Even in church, I know that people want to hear singers. They want to hear the human voice. As a clarinetist and saxophone player, "it's nice" if I play for special occasions to add a little color, but while I've written quite a few tunes for offertories and so on, NOT ONE TIME has anybody waxed rhapsodic about a tune I've written, or a harmonization I've done, but boy oh boy have I gotten kudos for some of my lyrics.

If the main concern here is to "be relevant to the greatest number of people in this modern age" then put down your saxophone and take singing lessons. Alternatively, learn pentatonic blues scales on electric guitar. That's it. for about 85% of the western world, and North America, for sure....there is nothing else musical and contemporary that matters.

I'd say, if you want to play saxophone, play it because you love it.

Definitely not arguing with you, but how is this news? The point is that it's possible to be a professional sax player, but not playing "standards" in a 1950s style. The sax isn't replacing pop singers or guitarists in the past, present, or future. How is that relevant? What's relevant is if you want to have a shot at being a professional you have little/no chance as a 1950s jazzer, and yet that's what's taught. That's a disconnect with reality. Jan Garbarek (not playing standards) was able to sell out the Albert Hall (5,900 seats). Kenny G (like or hate him) cries all the way to the bank when he reads how much we "dis" his style. I find heaps of opportunities to play with DJs as the only soloist and well appreciated by the dancers. The opportunities are there to be relevant and in the present tense.

No problem if you just want to play 1950s stuff. You can take a turn at the Jazz nite open mike and compete for "fastest sax sax in the west". Not many other public places to play unless you busk.

 

[TroubleClef]

I agree with others that have said this is sort of a rambling diatribe with a cursory effort to make it poetic. Personally, I find it incoherent and lacking in depth. A few of the statements stir the pot a bit, but he doesn't elaborate or offer any real insights so it's hard to take much from any of it. The knowledge that he's a "jazz" musician or even a "post-modern New Orleans musician" doesn't add much; this could have been written by anyone. Jazz may be dead or uncool depending on how one defines all of those terms, but nothing in his post convinces me of that.

In fairness, it's hard to know how much thought really went into his post. But he did post it for the world to see and 10 years on hasn't removed it so we can only assume he's happy with it as is. In that case, it's hard for me to take it very seriously as a commentary on "jazz".

Just to point out a few things that haven't been mentioned yet...

The statement "With all due respect to the masters, they were victims of a colonialist mentality." is hard to understand and he doesn't elaborate, but it sounds pretty dismissive and I would guess many of those masters would take offense to it. I don't think they would accept being characterized as anyone's victim. They knowingly chose a tough path in jazz because of what it meant to them personally. What they were doing at the time was truly innovative, not "traditional". It's only viewed as traditional now by some because of what people who came after them did or didn't do.

Another thing that would be interesting to know, since Payton said in 2011 he's not the same person he was 14 years earlier, does he now think he's same person he was in 2011? Again, he's left this post up so does that mean he's stopped evolving too?

I admit I haven't listened to all of his music but he clearly has great ability. That said, a lot of what I have heard seems very much "in the tradition", and not entirely memorable. This is in conflict with his implied rejection of tradition, as is his chosen label of "New Orleans" music. If you're rejecting tradition and labels, why chose any label at all? Let alone one (New Orleans) that literally defines the beginning of the tradition.

This all reminds me of when I heard Sam Rivers say it was a misconception that he and his avant garde contemporaries rejected what came before them. He said it was the opposite, they had so much respect for what came before them they knew they had to try something different. He gave the example that he studied Dexter Gordon and knew there was no use in him trying to recreate or improve on that. Sam's message seems much more clear and respectful, and I would argue few have blazed a more innovative trail than Sam Rivers.

 

[milandro]

Time is funny. That wasn't a few days ago, it was less than 24 hours ago. And look how much we are all talking about Mr. Payton! Seems like we've been talking for days!!!!

WE actually have been talking for YEARS about a variation or other of this stance, this is a theme coming back periodically, I don't know how many times I have seen it on SOTW but it must be many ( I will try to sum up a fe I've done that too before).

The usual to and fro of arguments are always the same . Some posts are also always the same in different threads.

In my opinion Jazz lost touch with the majority of its audience the moment it took the " intellectualization " route, from clubs entered concert halls, universities and conservatoriums acquiring " cachet" and loosing popularity.

Same as classical music ( unless we see the popularization of it which people frown upon say André Rieu for example....) it is music which is cultivated for and by an elite (I am not against elites).

Jazz became self-referential as it established the canon that we all ( those playing it) celebrate. Part of this self-referentiality is a ritual. Even those who don't ritualize it are referring to the canon but the importance of the music has shifted from a contemporary event into one set in stone, and this is as true of the music (even when it changes) as it is of the musician role.

I agree that Jazz isnt a style or a genre, I've said it before, it is a methodology. It can be applied to anything.

Anyway about Jazz's role into modern culture there are lots of books

https://spea.sitehost.iu.edu/pubs/undergrad-honors/volumn-6/Christmas-Rutledge,%20Adrianna%20-%20How%20Did%20Jazz%20Become%20a%20High%20Art%20-Faculty%20Michael%20Rushton.pdf

actually , since it became a subsidized form of art , as classical music did, the government(s) showed how intellectualized as opposed to popularized a form of art it had become, because the " market" was no longer supporting it as entertainment

"Jazz has been one of the most important of our art forms, providing enrichment for Americans and for all the peoples of the world. Despite its continuing vitality, jazz is not sharing in the prosperity of other forms of music. For this reason, the Endowment established, in Fiscal 1970, a pilot program in support of jazz" (Anderson 150).

Is "Smooth Jazz" dead and gone?

Is "Smooth Jazz" dead and gone? There have been no Smooth Jazz radio stations on the dial in my locality for years. So I wonder if it has gone 'belly up' or have they changed the name or has it been absorbed into regular jazz stations or what? Just curious. I never disliked it but on the other...

www.saxontheweb.net

Is Jazz Dead?

There's a lot of lamenting of the passing of community, of jazz dying, etc on this forum. But I don't buy into that. I think with the advent of the net and its influence on the way music is presented and listened to, it's simply going through a metamorphosis. Jazz is not dead or dying, it's the...

www.saxontheweb.net

Is jazz alto dead?

Hello, It seems to me that all the big modern saxophonists are primarily tenor players, Josh Redman, James Carter, Joe Lovano, etc.; and that there are less and less altoists coming into the lead. Do you think that jazz alto is dead or dying outside of a big band setting, or do you think...

www.saxontheweb.net

Jazz Is Dead, Change My Mind

Every time I go out to hear the best players in town, there's no one there but other jazz players. It seems like jazz is largely a cult of academia now, no longer fit for public consumption. The oppressive bopper **** I hear people playing gets cheers and high fives from the all-player...

www.saxontheweb.net

Sax on the Web Forum

www.saxontheweb.net

As a jazz fan, do you ever feel alone?

Today one of my bosses was getting ready to leave early for the day. Some of us at work were standing around talking as she was getting ready to leave, and we asked her, "where are you going?" She said she was leaving early cause she had a long drive ahead of her to Kansas City (we're in...

www.saxontheweb.net

What is Jazz? - A crash course. (Big post).

What is Jazz? Recently I have found myself listening to Jazz music more and more. I used to believe that Jazz was Jazz - The End. But how wrong I was! The more I looked into it the more it seemed to stretch out in front of me. I never realised just how many different genres there were out...

www.saxontheweb.net

Bird Died Sixty Years Ago Today -- Bird Still Lives...

Could those who say that Jazz is dead please explain how this 2 page article extolling the cultural importance of Bird on the 60th anniversary of his death ould appear in a daily circulation newspaper in Barcelona if it were true? The newspaper is La Vanguardia, the largest and most important...

www.saxontheweb.net

Free Jazz Is Not Dead It's Just Catatonic...

I'm retired and so I have a lot of time on my hands. I've always put down the sax for long periods of time. Sometimes I get really bored with my playing and when that happens I write other kinds of music that do not involve the saxophone. Lately I've had a surge of inspiration for the saxophone...

www.saxontheweb.net

Free Jazz Is Not Dead It's Just Catatonic...

I'm retired and so I have a lot of time on my hands. I've always put down the sax for long periods of time. Sometimes I get really bored with my playing and when that happens I write other kinds of music that do not involve the saxophone. Lately I've had a surge of inspiration for the saxophone...

www.saxontheweb.net

Jazz is Dying Out

Couldn't help but notice a couple of interesting things this week. First, Chris Potter was playing at Yoshi's in San Francisco, which together with Yoshi's Oakland, is the prominent jazz venue in the San Francisco Bay area. Chris Potter is supposedly a "highly regarded" jazz sax player. None of...

www.saxontheweb.net

Jazz: The musical participation sport?

Has Jazz become the musical version of a participation sport? That is to say, where baseball, football, and alike are generally more watched than played. This makes them spectator sports. OTOH, Golf, fishing and alike are generally more played than watched making them participation sports...

www.saxontheweb.net

Jazz is...

...not cool anymore. http://nicholaspayton.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/on-why-jazz-isnt-cool-anymore/

www.saxontheweb.net

Sax on the Web Forum

www.saxontheweb.net

Is it Only People That Play Jazz That Like It?

Is it only people who play improvizational jazz who like it ? .. for the most part, I mean ? Sure, there are a few non-musicians who might like it, but most of the people who like are themselves, jazz musicians, or jazz musician wannabees, right ? Improvisational jazz has virtually died on TV...

www.saxontheweb.net

 

[Bloo Dog]

I read more about Nicholas Payton. And found this:

----Payton's writings are provocative. One of his most notable pieces to date, "On Why Jazz isn't Cool Anymore"[3] describes the effects of cultural colonization on music. The article quickly earned his website 150,000 page views and sparked international press attention and debate.

Then read the actual "On Why Jazz isn't Cool Anymore":
On Why Jazz Isn't Cool Anymore | Nicholas Payton (wordpress.com)

Who can disagree?
I remember here on forum very interesting discussion with 2 completely opposite opinions about JAZZ.
What surpised me that each opiinion was right for me.

Though his rant lies on the other side of the fence,Payton out-Marsalised Ellis, Wynton, Branford, and Jason with his abrasive pontification. I wonder if he can out-play any of them.

 

[Sigmund451]

Jazz is dead, Expressionism is dead, Impressionism is dead, Modern Art is dead...bla bla bla.

I spent years around visual artists as well as musicians. Most the time its better off if they shut up and paint (or whaterver) and shut up and make music. Most the time what comes out of their mouth is just babble. They may sometimes have points to make but most the time the points are pointless.

Im not anti academic but frequently those in the business of making art are not terribly adept at talking about it.