Why is it so difficult?! I have a hard time seeing what all the fuss is about. Trying to categorize Jazz music into these rules of how you should do this or that or else you aren’t a real Jazz musician is ridiculous. With that being said, I will put forth that I think it is necessary to have learned the so-called “tradition”. Actually, what I am trying to say is having an appreciation and respect for what came before. Just because your music or way of playing might not reflect the “tradition” doesn’t make you any less of a musician necessarily. The thing that I have discovered is that Jazz to me is totally about spontaneous interaction with others…usually in an improvised setting. When I hear Cecil Taylor playing the way he does, I really enjoy it and he isn’t playing anything that resembles the stereotypical “language of Jazz tradition”. His music is spontaneous, unique, imaginative, and interactive. These qualities alone make it worth my while to sit down and have a listen…even if it isn’t my favorite kind of music; I still (for lack of a better term) “got much love for it”.
Seriously though, I’ve been to a few classes and I think that this whole topic has been exhausted. Let’s face it; at the end of the day, they are all just opinions. Even if we talked about this topic for an entire semester…agh! There is no such thing as these specific requirements to be a musician. It’s all about what a certain group of people like and dislike.
Looking forward to some hopefully more objective topics?
this is from John Bondis
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in the fact that these discussions can seem circular, however I do believe these discussions are incredibly relevant! They are relevant because it has become an issue of what gets played, what gets funded, what gets passed down, what gets formally taught and very importantly... what gets left out! (of course this would take us in circles again). Perhaps we need to tease out not only reasons why these particular sub-genres get left out (or left in for that matter) but also discuss what ways there are remedy these omissions (if there are indeed any ways to do this).
ReplyDeleteFurthermore how exactly can we talk objectively about music at all. An academic analysis of music is inherently subjective because, at the heart of it, every individual's auditory perception of the music is different; and scientifically not entirely understood from what I have read. An academic analysis of the history of a music (and a relatively young music at that) is just as subjective!
OOO and... I checked out an old cecil taylor album... and an argument totally could be made for elements "Jazz tradition" being present. But I agree it can be hard to tease those elements out!