Today, happily it's all good in the hood!
![win :#1:](./images/smilies/Win.png)
moldyfigg wrote:Perhaps I'm too narrow in my definition but most of the stuff today doesn't qualify as jazz: melody, harmony, rhythm and musicality..
moldyfigg wrote:Perhaps I'm too narrow in my definition but most of the stuff today doesn't qualify as jazz: melody, harmony, rhythm and musicality..
moldyfigg wrote:doesn't qualify as jazz: melody, harmony, rhythm and musicality..
moldyfigg wrote:Fusion, electronic, Coltrane clones, etc. Nothing important has happened in jazz for the last 40 years.
Straight ahead or get outta here.
moldyfigg wrote:Odd meter - Dave Brubeck did it 50 years ago!
Nothing new here.
Tom Storer wrote:Jason, you think jazz is getting rhythmically simpler? So much of the modern jazz I hear seems to be going in the opposite direction. I think of drummers like Nasheet Waits, Marcus Gilmore, Eric McPherson, Eric Harland, Dan Weiss, all the Dave Holland drummers over the years... it seems like all of them bring so much complexity, and it's demanded of them as well. And the straight-ahead drummers of note play very refined swinging drums. Where do you see the simplification occurring?
moldyfigg wrote:Fusion, electronic, Coltrane clones, etc. Nothing important has happened in jazz for the last 40 years.
Straight ahead or get outta here.
Scott Dolan wrote:steve(thelil) wrote:You're talking apples and origami. If by "important" we are talking about jazz "moving the public as a whole," most of it never did. It may seem like it now, but it's a myth. Big bands and Sinatra and Ella and the like were popular music, but I doubt that the number of people who listened to Bird or Trane in their times is no greater than the number of people listening to Wynton or Branford or Dave Holland today. What's important in jazz has always REALLY meant what's important to serious jazz fans. What's important to people who for one reason or another aren't serious jazz fans any more isn't very important.
You know, I'm not so sure about that. I'd have to think it wasn't simply popular music in name alone. And in those days it didn't have Rock and Roll to contend with. And even when Rock music started up it didn't imediately become the most popular music in the country.
Scott Dolan wrote:Well, unless you considered Fusion a completely new style.
That's highly debatable, I suppose.
Then again, Bossa Nova was a fusion of sorts just like Afro-Cuban Jazz. So if Bossa Nova was "unique" I guess the Rock/Jazz fusion would have to be as well.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests