Perception

Avant-garde jazz has been in a constant state of change. Whether it was Charlie Parker and Miles in the 1950s, Coltrane and the AACM in the 60s, or the jazz fusion craze of the 70s, avant-garde jazz was not always readily accepted, often considered outside the comfort zone of the majority of listeners.

A while back in class we talked about Jon Irabagon, the talented jazz saxophonist who not only performs by-the-book jazz, but also gigs with the avant-bop quartet Mostly Other People Do the Killing. In Hank Shteamer’s article, Irabagon admits that it has been tough assuming both roles within the jazz context. His friends whom are associated with the straight-ahead medium regard the avant-bop group as “circus music,” and assume that he is only doing it for the gig. This is not the case for Irabagon, but he does make a good point about a lot of musicians that end up playing in this genre. A lot of times they are “people who love making noise on their horns because they tried to be a jazz musician for a while and it just wasn’t working out, and they saw this escape hatch.” If this is a commonly shared view of the musicians who make up the foundation of avant-garde jazz, it is really no wonder why there is such a lack of support for this genre. Irabagon may not be too far off if history does in fact repeat itself. In the 40s, swing enthusiasts opposed bebop and Coltrane was met with ridicule as he took hold of free-jazz in the 60s. Today, the traditionalist hungers for jazz played by artists such as Wynton Marsalis and dismiss the experimental sound of Irabagon avant-jazz.

The Bad Plus, another avant-garde jazz group is met with a similar perception. They are not exactly labeled under the category of “circus music,” but they are not always taken completely seriously. My first hand experience in this happened sometime last year at a small get-together with a few of my friends. The Bad Plus’s cover of “Iron Man” started playing and one of the individuals said something to the extent of “Wow. Listen to this silly little jazz band trying to sound like a metal band. This is pathetic.” Now my next question is why when a jazz trio covers a pop song is it considered a joke? But when an already pop star experiments in classic music it is considered serious and reflective? David King, the band’s drummer, illuminates their intentions well. “We feel it’s a trajectory of improvised music, perfectly in line with the history of jazz. It it’s got a good melody, some great changes, if it relates well, if it can be interpreted in a way that sounds like its own music…what’s the problem?”

In Ethan Iverson’s interview with Wynton Marsalis, they briefly discuss conservative and radical views of jazz. Marsalis made a great point when he said, “I like the music. I don’t have any problems with it. But it’s got to have meaning. Everything can’t be it, if only because you can’t teach it to other people.” I wish more people shared this view on what it meant for the innovation of music to be considered it. Perhaps if the jazz musicians that Irabagon talks about (the ones where it didn’t work out in the first place) did not automatically gravitate to the free and progressive jazz, the other artists such as Irabagon might be taken more seriously. Marsalis also comments on the attractiveness of conservatism, “…the comfort in numbers. Everybody agrees.”

Ethan Iverson acknowledges that there is an awkward split in this generation of jazz music between traditional and progressive practices. He writes, “One thing that could help the schism is if the centrist players swallowed their understandable pride in achieving straight-ahead mastery and encouraged the experimentalists. (This almost never happens.)”