[Razzy]

In his introduction to the letters on improvisation from Bob Anram, SaxismyAxe writes:

His improvisation and technique is powerful and inspired, with the creativity and understanding of the best of the old lions, which I feel is sorely missing in the work of many of todays contemporary artists.

I am posting this as a prelude to a question I've had for a long time: which contemporary artists? Who is missing the tradition so sorely that they need to be educated? What do you hear in the great players of today that is lacking so badly? I want to understand this opinion because I've never heard of any specific examples or recordings to demonstrate it.

On the contrary, I feel that all of the great players on the scene today are steeped in tradition. Players like Joshua Redman, James Carter and Eric Alexander have obviously paid homage to the past masters, particularly Trane, Wayne, Dexter, and Stitt... introspective and pathfinding players like Seamus Blake, Donny McCaslin, Chris Potter, Jerry Bergonzi and Mark Turner have spent years studying Joe Henderson, Rollins, Dex and the rest of the "classic" tenor players to give them a foundation on which to grow. From there they worked extremely hard to develop their own style and have done so with tremendous success. Isn't this what it's all about?

In my opinion artists of this caliber are paying more respect to the past masters than ever by learning what they could from them and then continuing the tradition of jazz: breaking new ground and stretching into new territory with every record. Pushing the boundaries and opening up our ears to new sounds. Incorporating sounds from world music and other styles in order to create a new, personal aesthetic.

Agree, disagree? What do you think of these modern "young lions" who have done so much great work and created so many unique and interesting records? Do they need to hit the books and listen to more Dex, or are they doing ok??

 

[Swampcabbage]

Nice post. Seriously. I've found that many of the critics who write like this truly mean to say that they haven't studied the "old lions" that THEY would like them to study; and stayed there. It's something that happens in every generation too. There will most likely be those in my generation who will chastise someone for not studying Michael Brecker or Steve Coleman enough to truly transcend into their own voice. And yet, their voice will have to continue to echo those lions in order to earn that respect.

When you listen to early Cotrane you may here some Lester Young and Coleman Hawkins. Or, even some Sonny Rollins or Dexter Gordon. But, when Coltrane was thirty, all you heard was him.

Learning from masters is part of the path. Perhaps this critic is referring to some generic play-by-numbers kid he heard in his local coffee house. But mostly, I feel it's an ax to grind. "This guys dooesn't remind me enough of Lester Young or Stan Getz for me to want to pay attention?"

And as a footnote. How many are too many Masters? Is there enough time to truly study ALL the Masters? I'd bet that most of the great players we see today chose one or two heroes and rolled from there (check out Steve Coleman's interview with Dave Douglas a few months back in Downbeat, that talk about that same thing).

And at what point is it okay to start studying those who aren't the lions of the saxophone like Debussy, Boulez, Schoenberg, Ligetti, and etc...?

What about Anthony Braxton and Albert Ayler? Are they old lions yet?

It's unfortunate that with the declining rate of professional musicians working there seems that critics a multiplying at an ghastly rate. (Bloggers, writers for e-zines, and various music sites including download sites). It's one of the few professions that you can continue to make a living by gnawing on the hand that feeds you.

 

[BlueNote]

The sensativity is quickly fading away. There are a lot of great PLAYERS on the scene today, but none tap into the human condition in the ways that Coltrane, Hawkins, et al. did. It was never about the individual musician, but about the ensemble. Music is supposed to come from within, not from a lead sheet. Once you have the technique, you have this opportunity to move onto much more important aspects of musicianship. You've got to develop your own voice. Strive to have as much rhythmic and harmonic freedom as you can, and use it wisely.

And I have yet to hear a single jazz musician on the scene today, aside from the Masters who are still alive, that SWING. Unless I am not hearing it all, the feeling of jazz is also slipping in face of academics.

 

[Swampcabbage]

The sensativity is quickly fading away. There are a lot of great PLAYERS on the scene today, but none tap into the human condition in the ways that Coltrane, Hawkins, et al. did. It was never about the individual musician, but about the ensemble. Music is supposed to come from within, not from a lead sheet. Once you have the technique, you have this opportunity to move onto much more important aspects of musicianship.

I can understand that is your perception. But I must disagree. Coltrane and Hawkins were bothe accused of showboating by plenty of people. Someone like Warne Marsh, Lee Konitz, or Paul Desmond really seem to tap into the ensemble more in my opinion. I think that's just an easy answer. I've seen plenty of ensembles today that play on a level of intuitiveness that is staggering. Myra Melford's Same River Twice or Be Bread (or any of her groups) , The Paul Motian Trio, Dave Holland's groups, Steve Coleman's groups, Anthony Braxton, Joe Maneri, The Fringe, Dave Douglas, Jerry Bergonzi, and the list goes on.

While there are plenty of times that you will here individuals take a step in front of the group, I hear LOTS of interplay and ensemble playing going on with "Top Players" on most of their recordings and it is rare that I hear pyrotechnics for their own sake in concerts.

 

[Dog Pants]

The sensativity is quickly fading away. There are a lot of great PLAYERS on the scene today, but none tap into the human condition in the ways that Coltrane, Hawkins, et al. did. It was never about the individual musician, but about the ensemble. Music is supposed to come from within, not from a lead sheet. Once you have the technique, you have this opportunity to move onto much more important aspects of musicianship. You've got to develop your own voice. Strive to have as much rhythmic and harmonic freedom as you can, and use it wisely.

And I have yet to hear a single jazz musician on the scene today, aside from the Masters who are still alive, that SWING. Unless I am not hearing it all, the feeling of jazz is also slipping in face of academics.

Blue Note,

I can't begin to make up my mind as to whether or not I agree with you, because I'm unsure as to what your point is. Your post reads like a cocktail of cliches. A smashed box of fortune cookie philosophies. It's a literary technique utilised most often by those who want to sound wise and knowing, without actually committting to saying anything at all. Critics of the arts, Soothsayers, Oprah guests and Politicians have elevated this to an art form.
I think in essence, you unwittingly made Razzy's point for him.

When writers or critics use terms like "inspired," "old lions," "powerful," etc. When they make reference to our nostalgia for things past, and mistrust of things new. They are merely employing common literary devices, to convince us with rhetoric, where reason doth fail..

 

[BarrySachs]

The sensativity is quickly fading away. There are a lot of great PLAYERS on the scene today, but none tap into the human condition in the ways that Coltrane, Hawkins, et al. did. It was never about the individual musician, but about the ensemble. Music is supposed to come from within, not from a lead sheet. Once you have the technique, you have this opportunity to move onto much more important aspects of musicianship. You've got to develop your own voice. Strive to have as much rhythmic and harmonic freedom as you can, and use it wisely.

And I have yet to hear a single jazz musician on the scene today, aside from the Masters who are still alive, that SWING. Unless I am not hearing it all, the feeling of jazz is also slipping in face of academics.

There are plaenty of swinging mothef#@*ers out there. It just happens that the ones with major record deals are the more academic or modern type.

check out:
Wess Anderson
Dave Glasser
Sherman Irby
Bruce Williams
Jerry Weldon
Chris Byars
Harry Allen
Walter Blanding
Dan Block
Zaid Nasser
Shelly Carroll
Tad Shull
Grant Stewart

 

[Swampcabbage]

And I have yet to hear a single jazz musician on the scene today, aside from the Masters who are still alive, that SWING. Unless I am not hearing it all, the feeling of jazz is also slipping in face of academics.

I wasn't sure how to address this. The best I can do is this.

There were plenty of cats who thought that swing died in the 30's, and then the 40's, and then the 50's, and then the 60's, and then the 70's, and then the 80's, and then the 90's, and now we're inching up on 2010. I think that it safe to allow a little latitude in how we define swing after 90 years now. I've heard gangsta rappers swing.

How, exactly, do you define swing now? I hear plenty of it. Just like the acceptable rules of harmony and melody have changed, why not the acceptable rules of rhythm.

I can tell you how I define it, but it ain't a back beat. It's the part of the beat that preceeds the beat, there's a lot of swingin' going on there.

Dotted triplet swing still lives too.

I also submit to you that jazz is neither defined by harmony, melody, or rhytm. It is a living music that continues to evolve and heavily utilizes the improvisations of individuals and groups to sustain it's persona as well as provide the maximum emotional content. If you take away the ability to evolve then you've killed it.

It doesn't belong in a museum or a morgue just yet in my opinion.

 

[Razzy]

The sensativity is quickly fading away. There are a lot of great PLAYERS on the scene today, but none tap into the human condition in the ways that Coltrane, Hawkins, et al. did. It was never about the individual musician, but about the ensemble. Music is supposed to come from within, not from a lead sheet. Once you have the technique, you have this opportunity to move onto much more important aspects of musicianship. You've got to develop your own voice. Strive to have as much rhythmic and harmonic freedom as you can, and use it wisely.

And I have yet to hear a single jazz musician on the scene today, aside from the Masters who are still alive, that SWING. Unless I am not hearing it all, the feeling of jazz is also slipping in face of academics.

Jacob, given our history, I had decided not to respond to your post here. However, you changed my mind. This time your response is particularly inane and unreasonable and such nonsense deserves nothing less than being pointed out immediately lest somebody here decide to be influenced by it and believe it!!

Whether or not a player taps into the "human condition" as a completely subjective matter; that is to say, that the bum on the street blowing a G major harmonica, with no real knowledge of how it works or how to make music with it, could be tapping more into the human condition than a 30 year old jazz saxophonist who is recyciling licks at the local jazz cafe and in my opinion isn't saying a damn thing of his own with the music. In the past week, I have heard both, and the conundrum it presents in this context is baffling, until you realize: the human condition is different for all of us. Our latter friend's condition is that he went to school for jazz and took all of the wrong things out of it.

This is NOT the case with the great players listed above.

A lead sheet? What players do you think you're talking about? Have you ever seen Chris Potter with a lead sheet? How about Brecker? Oh yea, I forgot, according to you and others on this board, these people don't have souls. Excuse me for bringing them up. Ok then. How about every single one of the players listed by BarrySachs? That's what I thought.

The jazz that you proclaim to love so much more than modern music is ALL about the individual. I have yet to see Seamus, Chris, Donny, Jerry, Eric, Grant Stewart, etc. showboat for 20 minutes on a showtune adapted for a jazz quartet. I have heard of Coltrane doing this, however, on at least four separate occasions. It was powerful, it was raw, it was new. It's over and done with and thank goodness for that. The music of the current masters appeals to a much more... MUSICAL sensibility. Donny especially is all about ensemble; this is probably why he plays with Maria Schneider's band, one of the strongest ensemble forces on the scene today.

I'm not one to pick apart posts point by point but this is just too good to pass up. Others have done the rest for me. Cats that swing: see above.

Jacob, what really shocks me more than anything is that you are even younger than I am. And yet, at this fledgling stage in our developmental paths, you have already closed your mind to new things and become an old curmudgeon. This is DANGEROUS. I don't see you going very far with your career if you operate with such a narrow perspective from day one. You sound like a tired old man who has had it with life.

WAKE UP, KID!!

 

[Saxaholic]

Jacob, given our history, I had decided not to respond to your post here. However, you changed my mind. This time your response is particularly inane and unreasonable and such nonsense deserves nothing less than being pointed out immediately lest somebody here decide to be influenced by it and believe it!!

Whether or not a player taps into the "human condition" as a completely subjective matter; that is to say, that the bum on the street blowing a G major harmonica, with no real knowledge of how it works or how to make music with it, could be tapping more into the human condition than a 30 year old jazz saxophonist who is recyciling licks at the local jazz cafe and in my opinion isn't saying a damn thing of his own with the music. In the past week, I have heard both, and the conundrum it presents in this context is baffling, until you realize: the human condition is different for all of us. Our latter friend's condition is that he went to school for jazz and took all of the wrong things out of it.

This is NOT the case with the great players listed above.

A lead sheet? What players do you think you're talking about? Have you ever seen Chris Potter with a lead sheet? How about Brecker? Oh yea, I forgot, according to you and others on this board, these people don't have souls. Excuse me for bringing them up. Ok then. How about every single one of the players listed by BarrySachs? That's what I thought.

The jazz that you proclaim to love so much more than modern music is ALL about the individual. I have yet to see Seamus, Chris, Donny, Jerry, Eric, Grant Stewart, etc. showboat for 20 minutes on a showtune adapted for a jazz quartet. I have heard of Coltrane doing this, however, on at least four separate occasions. It was powerful, it was raw, it was new. It's over and done with and thank goodness for that. The music of the current masters appeals to a much more... MUSICAL sensibility. Donny especially is all about ensemble; this is probably why he plays with Maria Schneider's band, one of the strongest ensemble forces on the scene today.

I'm not one to pick apart posts point by point but this is just too good to pass up. Others have done the rest for me. Cats that swing: see above.

Jacob, what really shocks me more than anything is that you are even younger than I am. And yet, at this fledgling stage in our developmental paths, you have already closed your mind to new things and become an old curmudgeon. This is DANGEROUS. I don't see you going very far with your career if you operate with such a narrow perspective from day one. You sound like a tired old man who has had it with life.

WAKE UP, KID!!

Probably the best response there could have been to BlueNote's post. Well written and it gets the point across. Kudos to you, Razzy.

Saxaholic

 

[BlueNote]

Razzy,

You can argue with my all you want, but the words of someone else will not suddenly change how I listen to music. I suppose you hear the players you listed differently than me. You hear something in them that I do not hear. I used to be really into modern players, but nowadays I have been listening to more world music than jazz, and when I do listen to jazz, I listen to more pianists than saxophonists. If all I did was listen to saxophone players, I would miss out on picking up the subtle things that masters of other instruments do, so that when I have a band of my own, I can point out the sound that I am going for.

I wish I could say I really dig players on the scene today, but they don't strike me as deeply as someone like Joe Henderson or Charles Lloyd. I can certainly LEARN from players like Seamus, Mark Turner, and the others that you mentioned, but as a listener, my mind does not gravitate towards them... at least now. I respect them wholeheartedly, but one could spend a lifetime listening to Joe, Coltrane, et al. and still not understand everything that they produced.

 

[hakukani]

I've always gravitated to older, more experienced players, no matter their genre.There's something about a really seasoned player

I still would rather hear Brendel over Ax, , Basie over UNT one o'clock (no offense guys), Beaux Arts Trio over any other piano trio. Borodin String Quartet over even the old Cleveland.

There are a few exceptions...

 

[BlueNote]

However, players on the modern jazz scene that I DO enjoy listening to on a regular basis: Robert Glasper, Marcus Strickland, Mulgrew Miller, and some of Ravi Coltrane's recordings.

As hakukani said, there is something about a seasoned player that has a stronger pull than the younger players. It is a kind of depth that isn't conjured up in someone who is merely well-studied. There is a gentleman here in Seattle by the name of Hadley Caliman who blew my mind when I heard him play the other day. It was exausting after a while, just because he had so many subtlties to his style that I felt like running home and shedding.

 

[Razzy]

Implying that they use lead sheets, do not play with a strong ensemble sense, and do not convey the human condition is not my idea of respecting anybody. Those points, by the way: you're wrong on the first, wrong on the second, and the third is a matter of so much subjectivity and nebulous intellectualizing that it shouldn't even be bothered with.

It's not a matter of argument. When people make sweeping generalizations and false assumptions it is in my nature to respond with skepticism and reason.

I see that in the course of my posting this you added this little edit:

As hakukani said, there is something about a seasoned player that has a stronger pull than the younger players. It is a kind of depth that isn't conjured up in someone who is merely well-studied. There is a gentleman here in Seattle by the name of Hadley Caliman who blew my mind when I heard him play the other day. It was exausting after a while, just because he had so many subtlties to his style that I felt like running home and shedding.

And this is a perfectly fine opinion to hold for oneself, but I'm not sure what you mean by "conjured up". This sounds like more empty rhetoric to me, and as usual you work in exclusive intangibles in order to make your point seem watertight. Whatever you need to do, man Just please keep away from the downright falsehoods that you opened with here.

Still, nobody has really answered my question. I have not heard of a specific example of a player who could stand to use more tradition in his playing, or a specific record and what is MISSING in these players that they should have, or how you'd like their approach to be different. I phrase my question this way because most of the time the argument is stated this way: "...has something that the newer players are missing..." and it is rarely qualified in any way. Can't you just suffice with saying that you are not really into the current scene and you like the older stuff better? Why do the new players have to be missing something by (falsified) extension? Does it make you feel better or more justified about only liking music recorded pre-1970?

 

[hakukani]

I don't think that younger players are 'missing' anything, and of course this discussion is about intangibles, really.

I heard Eric Marienthal play a straight ahead concert, with some West Coast studio guys for his rhythm section. He sounded great. He sounded better than great. He really played well.

Six months later, I heard James Moody play with the same rhythm section. He sounded great. He sounded better than great. He really played well...and yet there was something more...

 

[BlueNote]

There is nothing wrong with players today, there are a lot of fine players, but there could always be something more to their playing. That "more" is what always tugs many of us back to the musicians who influenced the players of today. It is nothing that can be taught except for experiencing it first hand.

Much of jazz that has been recorded recently is fine-polished, clean, smooth, and sometimes too "perfect". What I hear when I listen to the classics is raw energy, where mistakes are part of the music. But their message is equally clear.

 

[Pgraves]

Stylistically "modern" players have a palette that includes more patterns than 40-60's players, but I hear the history in their playing that shows they understand the vocabulary of the 40's - 60's. Coltrane got away from changes and lines. BlueNote doens not include him in with the "modern" players who lack depth. Earlier players like Hodges and Webster had more espressive ornamentation, bending and vibrato and milking notes. ( a fine opera singer I know referred to as "shameless", but delivered with such conviction was regarded overall as beautiful) .
Is this the "humanity" that's being expressed and is missing in the current players?
The intellectual content of the fantastic hyper virtuostic new masters is clearly a step forward in jazz vocabulary. Or is it just a refinement of Miles/Coltrane/Shorter/ Hancock in the early 60's?
Sentimentality went out style long ago, probably with Parker.
So, what's this about, intellectual content or expressiveness?
The language is being extended with harmonic patterns. Who's going to out express Hodges or Webster ?
Players just know more now. The form (jazz) has been worked nearly to death. It's extremely hard to do anything that is not in some way derivative.
Unless someone has an especially unique inspiration, and invents a new revolutionary vocabulary, I believe that jazz is for all practical purposes all figured out and this is the equivalent of the Rococco era of classical music. Hyper-refining the essentials that have already been done. That's not to say that it's valueless or not artistic.
But the new guys have to be evaluated in context. They are trying to squeeze the last 5% (just a number) of innovation out of an form that has been worked over very seriously for 80 years by many gifted musicians.

Chris Potter played a solo at Yoshi's last year that was over alternating bars of 7 and 11. With a stunningly beautiful sound. Thematic contruction, intricate working, reworking of patterns and lines. It had everything. But what do I know if that's everything, I couldn't think of half that myself. Is this lacking humanity because it was so staggering in it's intellectual content?
My opinion is that there is incredible beauty, discipline, intelligence and depth to lots of the "new" players, but fundamentally there is less room for them to move than there was for earlier players.
Look at chess, there was a swashbuckling era of "inspired" attacks and sacrifices. That bit the dust when players generally improved and the brilliant masters had fewer easy opportunities to be "inspired". Their inspirations had to become more subtle and refined. And therefore not as easily discerned.
Same thing may have happened to jazz.

 

[Matt Kaesler]

The players of the 'blue note era' will always be revered as the masters of the art. They are the ones who wrote, recorded and performed a large majority of the jazz music played today.

Young musicians often don't sound like the masters as a personal musical choice. My lecturer at uni showed us a video in sax masterclass the other day from 1995-6 when he first started teaching in Durban, South Africa of John Ellis (sax player for one of the Charlie Hunter bands) playing 'How High the Moon'. This was before his Charlie Hunter days and he was absolutely SHREDDING. Classic sound, lines, intonation, amazing bop language just flowing freely, it was a beautiful thing to behold. He was 23 and playing like a giant. He then showed us a DVD recorded last year of John playing with Charlie Hunter. Not a bop line in sight, nothing even resembling a vaguely classic sound anymore. Contemporary and edgy, definitely not 'blue note' anymore but still musical, still alot of emotional connection through the horn and still exciting in it's own unique way. Josh Redman is another example of a guy who is an amazing straight ahead player but chooses to do his own thing. I think it has to be said that most of the great players on the scene today, whether traditionalist or not, are incredible straight ahead players.

But this is a little beside the point. For me, there is a perspective shift from when I listen to Charlie Hunter's band or to Mintzer or to Brecker or Josh Redman to when I listen to Cannonball, Ernie Henry, Stitt, Parker, Trane and the rest of the 'blue note' crowd. The context in which the music was/is made is different and has to be listened to that way. Modern jazz can't really be listened to in a bop era way and be understood, the same way as 'blue note' jazz can't be appreciated and understood with modern ears.

 

[docformat]

Man I love these threads ....

Good posts from Matt and pgraves

To put another spin on it (particularly what pgraves has said) the thing that makes modern players different is that they've got so much jazz to choose from - swing, bebop, free, fusion, r&b to name a few. It's how each player mixes these languages that gives them their style. If you go back to Trane and Getz's era there was less about and players had to be more comitted to their own signature style. Maybe this is the greater depth that some people say they can hear...

But at the end of the day we should be able to use all that history not become intimitated by it.

It's also a matter of context. People always talk about Trane but I think a lot of the jazz crowd were ambivalent about alot of what he was doing. It was a lot of the rock crowd who picked up on the 'spiritual' later Trane - and this has to be placed in the context of what was happening back then. Who knows how todays players will be received in the next few years?

 

[wersax]

Interesting!
In general discussions such as this one, about the value of older players/music versus newer players/music, there is ususally a lot of confusion in the conversation; people are often talking about different things and not connecting, (Kudos to Razzy for wading through the B.S. and setting the thread up well).
It's really simple: older players have played longer and worked more out in their playing style and vocabulary and less connected to the moment culturally, (because they were young and impressionable at another time). Younger players are more raw, energetic and more connected to "now". There are differences between individual players in how this all works out, but the essential, (and painfully obvious, I know), difference between a younger and an older player is the time they have played and the time that they came up in.
This is also true with the listener; we all expect different things and are connected to music through our experience.
The scene and the music biz have changed too. "Back when" players hung and jammed more. There was more "cross pollination", though could the internet be making up for this?
Anyway, I'm rambling. Time for coffee.......daryl

 

[SaxJazz12]

The lament that contemporary players lack the wisdom and understanding of the tradition is an argument based off of ignorance. There are so many amazing "young" players today who are not only studied cats, they have something unique to say. Chris Potter, Eric Alexander, Joshua Redman, Mark Turner, Marcus Strickland, Tim Warfield...I could continue to go on. These guys can play "in", they can play "out", they have chops, they compose. I highly recommend checking out younger players on the scene today--and not just the ones with a high profile. There is (and always will be) an abundance of inspiring musicians.