“If you don’t want jazz to change, you are putting a pillow over its face, and it’s going to die."
Truer words have never been said. Jazz wasn't meant to live in the shadows of Coltrane, Ellington, Monk, Bird, or even Miles Davis forever. Sure the history is important, and technique and the theoretical rigor will always be a necessary ingredient, but the moment Jazz stops innovating and expanding is the moment it dies.
Teaching Jazz is the way to go for most people who want to make a living from Jazz. I know several successful musicians who started as Jazz musicians but make a good living in rock and pop music. Getting to be known as the best of the best on your instrument via your Jazz chops can open doors in other genres to be invited to work with very successful, established artists. To make a living directly from Jazz you really want to go into education. If you have some hustle and you live in a medium to large sized city, no matter where you are there are likely enough kids interested in learning to play Jazz that you could develop a viable income as a private Jazz instructor on your instrument. From there you're taking part in building the scene of the future.
Indeed, likewise for classical music too. I'm pretty involved in my local music scene. Everybody I know who makes a decent middle class income from music, teaches. For one thing, there's reasonable demand. For another, it's a way for a performer fill your schedule with work during the hours when they pretty much can't be performing.
While, I'm incredibly grateful for the music education I've received [and still play at the age where many fellow amateurs increasingly don't [though time well tell whether I keep this up as I intend to]], the idea that the vast majority of artists primarily teach the next generation does carry the whiff of a Ponzi scheme.
I should have been a bit more specific: The teaching that I'm talking about is private lessons for younger kids, K-12 schools, and even a handful of adults who take lessons as a leisure activity.
I took music lessons as a kid, from around age 6 through high school. My parents had no expectation that I would become a professional musician. (In fact, my dad later expressed his relief when he knew that I wouldn't). And in reality I would never have made the cut. Jazz bass was easier for me to get into than classical cello, because there was at the time a shortage of bassists, and nothing like the insane auditions that classical players go through. I was happy to let music be a serious sideline while I pursued math and physics as my college majors.
Today, my kids are themselves taking classical lessons, playing in the youth orchestra, etc. It's interesting, when the orchestra has its final concert every year, the program gives a little bio for each kid who is a high school senior, and many of them mention their future plans. A huge percentage of the kids in the orchestra are planning on studying science, math, computers, etc. A few will actually study those subjects in college, paid for by music scholarships. One of my band mates went through college that way, and is now employed in the software industry.
I have mixed feelings on this. Students definitely shouldn't be taking on debt to study a profession that doesn't exist, and lower tier colleges that never ever produce professionals probably shouldn't be offering the major.
But I do see a place for the top conservatories, especially if we can find more ways for the programs to be very selective, and free. The music is beautiful and continues to evolve, and as long as the pursuit doesn't hinder everyone financially, it's a good thing to have going on in society.
I personally am not comfortable teaching music majors, but under the right circumstances I would be happy to teach electives to non-majors and kids. If you pay your dues and learn to really hear jazz, I truly believe it's one of the most intellectually and emotionally engaging experiences anywhere. I'd like to share that with people who aren't trying to make it their profession.
This depends on what you consider to be the purpose of music education. A good portion of musical training could be for personal enjoyment, expanding horizons, resume padding, etc. so it wouldn't be necessary or even desirable hat everyone get employment.
Think of martial arts. The best way to make a living in it is to teach, but the vast majority of students aren't there to make a living of it in the future.
Sure I'm fine with learning art not to be a full time professional, that's me after all. And if you going in wanting to teach, that's great too. I don't have a fully formed thought here, but more a gut reaction against a world where education and educators is always celebrated without any......sympathy that maybe these people rather be doing something else.
if you're a classical musician you're going to either play in an orchestra, which pays OK, depending on the notoriety of the orchestra you get into...or you're going to teach, which pays better for the most part.
keep in mind that if you're a classical musician of professional-level skill, that means you've devoted your entire life and a shit ton of money towards the pursuit of getting good at one of the hardest skills on earth. i've been programming for 3 years now, and i've written a 3d renderer, all sorts of websites, fluid simulations, a photon mapping renderer, etc, etc..i still don't feel like i'm that great at programming, but i feel pretty confident in my ability to write programs that work and aren't ugly. after 3 years.
after 10 years of playing the violin you're pretty much a novice.
I wonder whether instruments actually takes more time to learn, vs programming/computers being addictive AF and instrument practice (especially mechanical technique) being oh-so mind-numbingly boring when oh luck I could just noodle on that on 30 minutes later oops.
I clearly know nothing about music, but why does it even have to be called 'Jazz'? Given those market numbers cited, it seems like it would be a very bad brand to be associated with your music.
Having a son who's 12, and having recently had a bunch of pre-teens running around my house all going through the timeless ritual of identity crafting, I have gotten to listen to their music, watch their media, and hear their thoughts. When I talk with them about music, it doesn't surprise me that they view the music of my day (80s / 90s) with as much boredom as I had viewed big band music in my day. To them, rock and jazz are Baroque. Guitars and Drums? I might as well play them a harpsichord.
On the other hand, I know several highly skilled, expert musical technicians in their 20s and 30s. They have spent the majority of their lives training to master the practice and theory of music. They know so much about their instruments and their technique, it frankly astounds me. In comparison to dedicated musicians of my day, they seem like masters. Yet, for some reason, they spend their time playing Jazz derivatives and covers or as studio musicians. Interestingly, they're all playing Jazz - which to me is so puzzling. It's akin to being a master visual artist and being absorbed in re-creating Pollack or Rothko or Kadinsky.
Jazz had a moment, and it was a beautiful moment. It can be admired and relished as such, and the music can help transport one to that moment in time. But, does Jazz even make any sense in the modern world? I love listening to some of it - Coltrane and Davis, of course. But, if I went to a music venue today, and the band was playing Jazz, I'd be bored out of my mind.
These things have value. That value exists independently of popularity or financial success. Those expert young musicians play jazz because they love jazz. Everything else they do is a means to that end. As long as people continue to love jazz, then jazz will thrive.
Jazz musicians are proud to be part of a tradition, just like folk or classical musicians. They see themselves as part of something enduring, something that transcends record sales.
When I hear a young musician play Caravan or In A Sentimental Mood, I don't hear a re-hashing of an old Ellington tune. I hear a conversation that's been going since the 1930s. I hear a new chapter being written in a long story. I hear a torch being passed.
Maybe your son will never connect with jazz. That's fine, jazz isn't for everyone. Somewhere out there, a 12 year old is listening to Bird or Trane or Christian Scott and saving up to buy their first horn. That's all that matters to us - that someone hears our music and is inspired to carry the torch.
Well put. My son is 6 and a huge fan of Sun Ra, he's also into Flying Lotus, Radiohead and Kamasi Washington. He's there to explore, and find his place. I'll encourage him as far as I can. I love your last sentence, I hope he finds his way, and if intended, that he carries that torch.
The reason why people learn to play jazz is because of how it compels you to improvise. Even though the standards are the same, every performance is different. It is technically very challenging to play something off the cuff that not only sounds good, but does not sound derivative, expresses your individuality within a collective rhythmic and harmonic and melodic setting, and is also commercially viable. No other modern music exercises this creative muscle so rigorously, and it's a skill that carries to other genres.
> But, if I went to a music venue today, and the band was playing Jazz, I'd be bored out of my mind.
Jazz has many flavours that have long walked hand-in-hand with social dancing. Maybe spend a bit more time exploring its depth? Here's a modern rendition of a timeless classic:
Even Miles Davis said once, he doesn't like the word jazz. In his opinion back then, it should have been called people's music. Nice swing music you posted up there, but when we talk about jazz, we need to mention some of the greats of modern time, like Pat Metheney, Pat Martino, John Scofield, Heribie Hancock, Chick Corea and that alien called Alan Holdsworth (fusion ? ) The "weirdest" the music gets, the harder it is to label it. There is a ton of modern jazz artists that i haven't mentioned. Like Metheney once said, you need to explore, because there is good jazz and there is bad jazz...
But, my point is that when I watch those videos, I see people trying to avoid modern reality - trying to portal back to a different time. It looks like escapism, avoidance, or maybe looking for acceptance from their elders. Or, maybe that's just me.
Many great answers here, but something that hasn't been mentioned yet is jazz as a method.
This isn't new. There's the oft-maligned Latin Jazz---one reason a lot of synthetic music that happened in Cuba, Brazil, and other such plays was more similar inputs---similar outputs development in parallel. Once you get recorded music + radio, and tourism in Cuba, there's more actual cross-pollination, but there's plenty of stuff before that.
As far as the method goes, obviously improvisation is a big part, but the big picture is Jazz is a social and live music. If Classical is a play, Jazz is a conversation at a Cafe. Sure people listen to recordings, but also classic trane records and others are a lot more sliced and diced than one might think. There's big band too, but what goes on at most schools is a bit suspect without the collectively authored head arrangements. Musically, we have the tradition of a preset harmony and, to a lesser extent form, is the "seed" for everything else, African rhythm, European harmony, and a bunch of unconscious idioms that would be hard to right down without lots of luck and pondering. [There's my cop-out. :)]
As a younger student, I and many others gravitated towards funk, because it's clear (though nobody said so explicitly) that that is the foundation for everything that's popular today (more than rock I'll jeer now that top 40 ate everything :P). The narrative of funk, if you will, is soul musicians' session players striking out of do their own more instrumental/dance focused thing. And those session musicians all had jazz backgrounds. So there's the historical connection, and musically it's largely a similar method, though more emphasis on premeditated groove and rhythm section in general.
There's nothing inherently creative about artistic technique. At best it gives you a way to express creativity. At worst it's a dead thing you keep repeating over and over because you can't think of anything interesting to say.
Theories of art are a really good way to kill creativity. Music theory can become a huge set of if...thens... and unfortunately even talented people don't always get past that.
The skills you need to be a brilliantly competent session musician or a successful teacher are only distantly related to the skills you need to be an interesting and original music creator.
This is the big trap in how art education is conceptualized. 'Thing is, if you can't follow the rules there's nothing interesting about you breaking them.
> At best it gives you a way to express creativity.
I'm more on board with this, but there's still the implication that creativity is fixed and just waking to break free. There are the old aphorisms about writing to think, and so one needs to learn music to wield the medium richly.
Also, I care about originality sure, but I also care about complexity. Take a bunch of absolute beginner and professionals, I bet a) the beginners improvisations are no more diverse between people (don't most of us all grow up awash in similar ambient music in this increasingly globalized world?) and b) each professional's improvisations (by and large) are have more variety.
Mathematically, I imagine some big state space of possible music, and everybody starts with some tightly scattered small subsets/topological balls/whatever, and then those grow, and maybe even spread a bit (so they don't completely grow together) with training.
> At worst it's a dead thing you keep repeating over and over because you can't think of anything interesting to say.
I do agree that all music education should involve at least one of composition and improvisation, preferably both, or otherwise there's risk of that. Not going to lie the archetype here is classical, but until decently through the 19th century actually there was more emphasis on improve and creativity in Europe too (even before modern cults of individuality! Contradictory as that sounds). So in some sense we need to recover what is lost.
> Music theory can become a huge set of if...thens... and unfortunately even talented people don't always get past that.
Hmm I think this is a broader failure of education that music theory just puts into stark relief. I think many people have trouble connecting everyday experience and intuition with learned rules. For example all of are hardwired with an immense amount physics intuition, and learning basic classical physics is basically cross-referencing with a few surprising axioms and math that one should have been already taught.
Yes, musical is cultural/learned and not innate, but my does it hack the brain and in deep and surprising ways (does visual art vampire-tap your emotions like major vs minor??). The unconscious knowledge here is both deep and abstract. Music theory done right should function a lot like linguistics, and there there should be a lot of "gosh darn that does explain it" moments. Only without introspection do the rules become worthless bureaucracy.
But I do need to rant about a personal gripe. Functional harmony is a funny thing because it arrived to Western music fairly late yet is already on it's way out. I sometimes have a weird disconnect as I feel I have more of an innate "in-cultural" understanding of it than many of my peers. I think when it was "trending" music theory education got more of a free pass, but now the inadequacies are in sharper relief. Mathematically, it's roughly a state machine, but no teaching even covers that. Furthermore the meaning/asethetic/whatever-you-wanna-call-it is not in the states but the transitions, yet everybody gets hyped up on the chords. We teach roman numeral analysis and voice leading, but don't get right to the point that it's the chord progressions that count the most. A chord out of context carries a lot less information.The skills you need to be a brilliantly competent session musician or a successful teacher are only distantly related to the skills you need to be an interesting and original music creator.
> The skills you need to be a brilliantly competent session musician or a successful teacher are only distantly related to the skills you need to be an interesting and original music creator.
Yeah but we don't exactly teach the first two either from the beginning do we :)
Oddly enough, I view contemporary popular music with boredom too.
I'm one of those musicians who plays jazz. I'm a double bassist and a so called "day jobber," meaning that music is not my primary income source. Am I an expert technician? Sure. A decade of classical lessons, thousands of hours of practice, and 30+ years on the bandstand will do that to you.
Why jazz? Well, for one thing, contemporary popular music doesn't even involve my instrument. I'm obsolete. ;-) And I love the double bass -- the sound, technique, history, contemporary leaders, and even just the sheer absurdity of it. For another, I've developed my jazz chops to the point where my best chance of making further musical progress is to continue with jazz. I don't know where I'd even begin to come up with new ideas in the contemporary pop styles, or how I would turn it into a performance art.
There are a couple more things. While there's certainly a market for contemporary pop music, it's utterly saturated with talent. And pop music has always been youth and appearance oriented. As to how credible a 52 year old guy would be in that scene, I'll leave to the imagination. And the target demographic has been conditioned to expect entertainment to be free. For a non-superstar, the popular scene -- even going back as far as rock & roll, is depressing.
So a few of us who have no prospects in popular music, but enjoy performing with some semblance of dignity, will be drawn to other musical genres. In your locale it may be jazz, but more broadly it's also classical, baroque, fiddle music, accompanying dance clubs, etc. Living near Chicago, there's a lot of blues. Players who are still interested in the electric guitar & bass find outlets in the various forms of heavy metal and rock music, playing small venues that support original music.
Money? Surprisingly, yes. For almost a couple decades, I've had a pretty consistent schedule, of roughly one gig per week. Most of the work is paid, with very little overhead. There's no heavy equipment to set up, and commercial gigs such as weddings and corporate events are un-rehearsed. I've never had to go on tour. At the same time, rock bands find it almost prohibitive to break into paid work, because the established players tend to corner the market on the good commercial work.
Another surprise is that an audience will crawl out of the woodwork when good music is being performed. Not a huge audience, and not necessarily a drinking audience, which severely limits the economics. But people will come. Some are musically omnivorous, or even like newer styles, but show up because we still know how to entertain, and we can perform without driving you to deafness.
So I'll never claim to understand the economics of the music business, but it seems to me that there are little niches where people can enjoy performing with dignity while opting out of the mainstream popular music scene.
My kids, both teenagers, have shown no interest in either jazz or popular music, as musicians. They both prefer classical.
one of the identifying features of jazz is that the music isn't just the product, but its directly used as material by others.
jazz is a loaded term. i like ahmad jamal's term for what people usually mean when they talk about jazz, "american classical music". when i think of jazz i'm thinking about a certain kind of attitude toward music where the performer is putting life into the music the way you might think of an actor putting life into a script. makes a lot of sense in the modern world, i think, where selling recordings makes less and less sense but live performances are still relevant.
> Yet, for some reason, they spend their time playing Jazz derivatives and covers or as studio musicians.
Because that's the kind of music they like to play and know best. If they went to music school, jazz and classical are the dominant music styles that are taught. Also, you can make a pretty good living as a studio musician. It's much less risky than trying to sell your own albums as a solo artist.
> Interestingly, they're all playing Jazz - which to me is so puzzling. It's akin to being a master visual artist and being absorbed in re-creating Pollack or Rothko or Kadinsky.
No, it's like a painter creating their own works with Pollack, Rothko, and Kadinsky as key influences.
You think they should do the musical equivalent of a master painter taking a job at an graphic design firm? Plenty of them do, actually, you got to pay the bills somehow. That's what being a studio musician is.
> Jazz had a moment, and it was a beautiful moment. It can be admired and relished as such, and the music can help transport one to that moment in time. But, does Jazz even make any sense in the modern world?
As the article mentions, Jazz is changing with the times, as it always has. The music that Coltrane and Miles played in the '50s and '60s was quite different from what the New Orleans bands of the early 20th century were playing. It's funny you should mention Miles because he lived and played through several eras of jazz (and was the pioneer of several of them). He also expressed an ambivalence towards his earlier work.
> " "So What" or Kind of Blue, they were done in that era, the right hour, the right day, and it happened. It's over [...] What I used to play with Bill Evans, all those different modes, and substitute chords, we had the energy then and we liked it. But I have no feel for it anymore, it's more like warmed-over turkey."
If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video is worth a million. So instead of trying to explain it more, here's a jazz track released last year. Tell me if it sounds boring or old-fashioned.
> But, if I went to a music venue today, and the band was playing Jazz, I'd be bored out of my mind.
If I went to a music venue today and they were playing hip hop I would be similarly bored. Turns out different people have different tastes.
As for why you'd go and listen to someone cover a song from Kind of Blue: jazz is mainly improvisational. That means even if they play "So What", it won't be note-for-note the same as the version on that historic record. Hearing the ideas that the musicians create in the moment by listening and responding to their bandmates is the reason I love jazz.
None of these tunes could have been made any time before 2010, and all are clearly jazz (or at least heavily inspired by Jazz). With R&B, (Neo-)Soul, and other jazz forms re-emerging in pop music, Jazz remains the source of much of modern musical innovation.
i like the songs, but to me it still looks like there is no innovation going on there. Just repackaging of old themes using new (digital) instruments. I think nothing comes close to Alan Holdsworth in terms of innovation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXSd-WyrtfA
I included that one as an example of how artists are merging instrumental hip hop back in with Jazz; there's plenty of other styles of Jazz in the list! You're right that a global statement of "couldn't have been made before 2010" for the whole list was a bit over the top.
I love that quote. Interestingly, when I think of Miles Davis, subconsciously my internal memory goes to 'Tutu'. I can't say that I understand it or even enjoy it, but I would definitely describe it as art as it invokes something in me. As a child of the 80s, I get it in a very personal way that is different than what I get when listening to 'Kind of Blue'.
Many developments in jazz of the 60s and 70s are just starting to become normalized and institutionalized in the 21st century. Check out the history of the AACM and Art Ensemble of Chicago for one important example:
I think you guys are missing my point, which is my fault. Making art for the money should never be a primary goal, unless one's goal is the emphasis and irony of that relationship (see: Koons). Otherwise, how can it really be art? It's been constrained and affected by the expected effect.
However, there's a huge difference between self-labeling one's art in a way that obscures it from wide access (like labeling a music created today as 'Jazz') and actually re-producing previously successful art forms (e.g. 'Jazz') because of a fear of judgment or chasing of praise.
Jazz has always been a progressive, innovative musical form. If you understand jazz to be static and backwards-facing, then you have been sadly misled. Jazz has a tradition, but that tradition is a starting point rather than a destination. Jazz musicians stand on the shoulders of giants, not in their shadows.
You can make art for the sole purpose of money. Lots of writers and musicians churn out pulp and jingles to keep the pool heated. And some of that stuff is really good art.
I think you're stuck with a particular definition of jazz, the one that's putting the proverbial pillow on it. If you define jazz as that stuff that had its moment in the past with Coltrane and Bird, etc, of course it's going to be boring and old hat. If you listen to Robert Glasper's Black Radio and understand it a contemporary expression of jazz as well as R&B, then it's easy to be amazed at how much jazz has evolved and enthralled with where it's going. Jazz has never been "pure" - it has always reached into different music genres in subtle and unexpected ways. It remains misunderstood for that reason.
Your comment seemed flippant as you play off the title of the article, and I don't think the average reader wouldn't have interpreted your comment as a value judgment. What were you intending to convey with your factual observation?
>Your comment seemed flippant as you play off the title of the article, and I don't think the average reader wouldn't have interpreted your comment as a value judgment.
Well, you, for one did. Your comment seems to imply that I thought jazz not selling also meant that jazz doesn't matter.
>What were you intending to convey with your factual observation?
Just what I said, nothing more, nothing less: that today jazz doesn't sell.
Truer words have never been said. Jazz wasn't meant to live in the shadows of Coltrane, Ellington, Monk, Bird, or even Miles Davis forever. Sure the history is important, and technique and the theoretical rigor will always be a necessary ingredient, but the moment Jazz stops innovating and expanding is the moment it dies.