Am i the only person who thinks the newer jazz musicians are far more advanced than that of yesterdays? I mean, I could probably give it to Charlie Parker if I knew what I knew now back then. Im not trying to be arrogant but bebop is a pretty standard language amongst jazz musicians now. If you dont know how to bop than.. what are you? Even that seems old now. Im not saying its the only way to improvise or are we giving so much credit to the innovators that anything else fails in comparison? I mean Louis Armstrong was great, but Wynton is just a better trumpet player. Trust me, I met wynton. Hes dik head. I was just using him as an example I beg to differ. The newer jazz musicians are building on the foundations of the groundbreakers who came before them. As far as Wynton, he is probably the best trumpet player out there. However a lot of jazz experts claim Louie Armstrong as the most important jazz artist of all time. He changed around the whole style of improvisation.
As far as the "old" and "new", where are the Charlie Parkers, John Coltranes, Django Reinharts, Miles Davises, Duke Ellingtons, Billie Hollidays of today? Do you see any of todays people becoming legends of the stature of any of these people? Where are the groundbreakers? Well, first of all, you have to acknowledge that without Pops, there'd be no jazz - so therefore no Diz, no Miles, and certainly no Wynton.
Regarding Marsalis, sorry but I have to agree w/ Keith Jarrett - Marsalis may have all sort of chops (both jazz and classical) but he's an arrogant reactionary and his playing has no real soul. But that's just an opinion, you're free to have yours.
Does he have more technical ability that Pops? Sure - but remember Pops acknowledged that ALL the major boppers had more crazy chops than him several times.
Are there technically better players than Bird, Bill Evans, Coltrane, etc. today? Yes - but remember - today's players exist simply because of the aforementioned trail blazers who weren't in it to establish a vocabulary of modes and scales - they were exploring brand new, uncharted territory in their music. Isn't this what makes Miles so attractive? Why Giant Steps still holds salt today? Why our jaws still drop to hear Bird, even with all those sappy string sections behind him? There was fire, there was exploration, they were taking chances.
This, I guess, is really the rub for me. Recordings are certainly more pristine today (thanks to the technology). More players have a greater command of the extended jazz harmonic vocabulary (thanks to the wealth of educational resources the trail blazers never had). So on the surface, jazz 'sounds' better and more polished
But IMHO I have a lot of trouble finding anyone blazing a new trail - really stretching the envelope and taking risks. What's missing is the heart and soul of the human spirit reaching out for something new and great. Instead, everyone sounds the same - playing it safe. And to add insult to injury, we have Marsalis et.al. as self-appointed curators of a static form of jazz that they've defined as 'acceptable'.
Sorry, from everything I read and have heard from my teachers and instructors, this is diametrically opposed to everything the trail blazers were about and what jazz really stands for.
Yes, I'm a jazz musician (piano and keys). Are there better players than me? LOTS of them. Are you a better player than me? Very well could be. But it doesn't matter - the reason I got into jazz was the freedom (and accountability) to say something unique and personal with my music - not preserve a dead art from that began in the '50s and ended when Wynton said so.
So I guess it depends on what yardstick you're using to measure 'more advanced'.
Hope that helps, best to you. music is always improving on itself.(it's kinda like it's own Lyrical Science)
The newbies get inspiration from the old timers. and build off their break thrus.
then,since they already have the established base to work off of , they are able to take greater steps from that platform.
that said,
i don't think you could really compare music styles between eras , so much as you can opine as to which artist was particularly progressive , in their own era. The only reason to have such a perception is due to the fact that the 'new' learned everything they know from the 'old'. Back in the 50s and 60s, do you think any musician had transcriptions of Bird and Trane to study?
The major music schools (Berklee, Peabody, Julliard) often forbidded playing jazz and required the students to study the 'classics'. Today, there isn't a single university music program that doesn't use the theory and techniques of Diz, Monk, Mingus, Ellington (the list goes on and on)...
I strongly disagree that 'new' jazz musicians are more advanced. Monk was advanced, Bird was advanced, Miles, Mingus, Ellington - all of them ventured into uncharted territory like no modern person has done since. You say Wynton is a better trumpeter than Pops? Wynton would never say that! If he did, he would be just plain wrong. You cannot compare the two on those terms.
You may not be the only person who thinks this way, but if you truly believe this, you are just as wrong as anyone else who agrees with you! |
