Subscribe to this feed
<$8.30.2005$>
JAZZ... S. O. S. (Part 1)
| Sting's chorus, 'sending out an S.O.S.' is not likely referring to the sinking state of jazz; although for a pop star he's had an unusually close association to the art form. After all, he's featured some of the best young talent jazz has had to offer - Branford Marsalis and Kenny Kirkland for starters. But is jazz in trouble? After riding high for nearly a century, producing some of the most brilliant original music and some of the most ingenious artists of the 20th Century, could the future of jazz be in question? For much of my youth and all of my adult life, I have pondered the question of what makes jazz such a uniquely odd art form; exhibiting an irresistible magnetic pull while at the same time remaining elusive, exclusive and inaccessible. Today however, my question is; will jazz music survive the 21st Century? I asked that of a handful of music industry veterans. Recording artist Lalah Hathaway observes: "I think all soul music is in trouble... but then again I'm a bit of a cynic." Another musician suggested that, "If it's white folks playing jazz, no, it's not in trouble; but if it's black folks playing jazz, yeah, it's in trouble." Jazz has always had its issues of racial divisiveness, however, the bigger question is - will jazz survive the new music technology or will digital sequencing, downloading, CD burning, cancer-stricken major labels, ravenous monopolistic corporate radio smoothly sail jazz right into a Bermuda Triangle oblivion? "It is hard to predict what effect downloading has on jazz," said Hathaway. "I feel like most people who have an affinity for these records also understand how badly needed the support for the artist is." That doesn't sound so cynical, Lalah. "Satellite radio seems to be one of the last places to go for music," continued Hathaway. "I love my XM. Where else at 3:15 in the afternoon can you turn on the radio and hear Bud Powell uninterrupted?" Songstress Alyson Williams agrees. "Satellite radio may be our saving grace," she said. It may be hard to believe but Hip Hop is in its 30s, Rock & Roll in its 50s and soon we will have enjoyed 100 years of an original American art form, first made popular by black folks in towns like New Orleans, New York City, Kansas City, Chicago and St. Louis. Jazz has been left for dead a number of times throughout its lengthy history but it survived "1-2-3 o'clock 4 o'clock Rock", Elvis and Little Richard. The Beatles couldn't silence it. It even survived Smokey's "Goin' to a go-go"; Stax and T.S.O.P. Kurtis Blow, Grand Master Flash and all of the Furious Five couldn't send jazz to its final resting place; albeit, "close to the edge." The deeper question is whether or not there is still a need for - or more importantly - a place for jazz or anything else in America that requires the use of perfectly good, God-given gray matter. "It's music that tries to make you think," says bassist Tracy Wormworth. In an effort to make our world more 'user friendly', have we inadvertently numbed down our 'culture' to a point where jazz and books and movies that have more dialogue than chase scenes are no longer marketable? This has been referred to this as the 'de-evolution of mankind.' Perhaps! Is the jazz musician an anachronism or is it possible that western consumerism has reached a point of gorging itself on what is 'new and easy' faster than a Bird riff over Donna Lee? The music industry as a whole has its own problems. The major dilemma is the modern ideology that anything that anyone can access electronically or digitally becomes their own personal property - like "finder's keepers." It totally mitigates the notion that original ideas can be owned and protected; that the originators have a right to be compensated for the use of their work. How can you protect copyrights in a free access environment? If all original creative works immediately become public domain due to 21st Century technology, how are songwriters and lyricists compensated for their work? How do recording artists get paid for their recorded performances? Jazz musicians share these same issues but what makes jazz so unique is that while there are melodies to protect and recordings worthy of royalties, it's the live performance that showcases the spontaneous inventiveness of the jazz artist where a player intentionally delivers an entirely different take on a given melodic theme each time out. That's what jazz is, free movement around a given theme or melody. That's jazz. In fact, jazz has been said to represent the very principles of freedom. Even Barbra Streisand says of her recordings: 'every take is different.' In jazz, if a cat were to play the same solo over the changes of a tune night after night his skills or at least his creativity would quickly come into question. Mass appeal is a sing-a-long like "We Are the World." A jazz artist would turn that song on its head so you couldn't sing along. Jazz musicians search for countless ways to tell a musical story. Wynton's Lincoln Center Jazz Band could take Beethoven's Fifth and twist and turn into a new work of art. The New York Philharmonic Orchestra would intentionally perform it essentially the same night after night, year after year. Both require mastery and amazing skill levels. But in jazz, part of the skill set is re-inventing. You have to hear it and judge for yourself. Jazz musicians could do the same thing with "Amazing Grace," "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" or "America the Beautiful." It's been that way since Louis Armstrong. What then of jazz music where there is no freedom, no solos over the changes or open interpretation for fear that it might stretch beyond what was recorded and heard on FM radio? Even worse, what if the industry actually continues to dictate the creative output of an entire community or 'artists' to a greater extent than they already have for many years, rendering a paralyzing blow to the very freedom of expression that is the backbone of jazz? Keyboardist, Marcus Johnson notes: "It's not something to be controlled." Tenor man Branford Marsalis has a different perspective. In a Jazz Times (November 2004) interview with Nate Chinen he said, "My motivation in music is not to declare myself an individual or that I've invented something new." Interesting point, but there's only one Branford. Finally, jazz, like classical music, struggles to find its audience. Wormworth notes that, "In the U.S. the audience for jazz is so small, but in Europe it has a much bigger audience." Williams says she believes as audiences mature, their tastes do also. "Hopefully there will always be an audience," she added. "But will it sustain new talent?" Good question! Hathaway observes: "I don't expect in 100 years that jazz will be like baroque music. For those of us that this expression speaks to, we will carry and pass it on." Jazz always seeks to find an audience with a mind and an appetite for challenge and constant change. To a large extent, jazz is defined by change. Johnson says: "It's up to those who love jazz in all its forms to save it. We're the only ones who can." Jazz music thrives on change; it always has. It will survive, so save the S.O.S. for the less buoyant. Jazz may very well be unsinkable. |
