Re: Jazz Heads

From: Peter Marsh (marshp@richmond.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Feb 03 2000 - 16:43:16 MET

  • Next message: sealclas: "(no subject)"

    temi wrote;
    >
    >I went to bed too early last night and woke up around
    >2am (South London time). I needed a sound to feed my
    >soul, make the moment complete, you know, so I
    >stumbled to my collection and started to dig.
    >
    >I finally settled for Charles Lloyd's Live in
    >Copenhagen with Petruciani, Side B. I felt elation and
    >sweetness. If the cats at the DEA were hip to sound
    >they would ban that record for its high, high content.
    >
    >Then it occured to me that maybe a silent majority of
    >us are just jazz heads in search of a sound thats both
    >innovative and hip to the times we live in. Especially
    >since Wynton Marsalis and his regressive cohorts
    >declared that cloning and rehashing was better than
    >plain trying to kick your shit whichever/however.
    >
    >No wonder cats like Miles and Lester Bowie expressed
    >contempt for his regressiveness and overall blandness.
    >But I digress, the question is are we just jazz heads
    >in search of the in sound from way out??

    i'm most definitely a jazz head if that's the case, though i'm not sure if
    'jazz' means anything any more. it's a shame that (with some honourable
    exceptions, natch) jazz as a genre has largely disappeared up its own arse
    with the likes of wynton giving it a good push in that direction. if it's
    anything, jazz should be a living and breathing thing, not some kind of
    museum exhibit, though as f.zappa once said. 'jazz is not dead, it just
    smells funny'. as well as that kind of historical preservation society
    tendency, the term has been abused so much and has become a signifier for
    hip, cool lifestyle accessories and little more than some kind of marketing
    tag. just check the amount of shite themed jazz comps available in yr local
    virgin megatower records, as well as the appropriation of the term (as well
    as a whole bunch of samples) by certain members of the dance music
    fraternity in order to lend themselves a certain credibility... actually,
    and i'm sure i'm not alone in this, i think the term acid jazz is a little
    suspect...i always took it to mean some kind of jazz/psychedelic fusion, so
    i would automatically think of herbie hancock circa 1973 or miles of that
    time rather than the likes of galliano or the brand new heavies, though
    obviously this list is way outside of that narrow definition. that true
    fusioneering spirit (miles's blending of stockhausen, hendrix and sly stone)
    is still around and rears its pointed little head occasionally
    (squarepusher, paul schutze, ponga, tied&tickled trio, graham haynes, margue
    gilmore, cinematic orchestra etc). the point is that to me anyway, jazz is
    about real time playing and interaction, about improvisation. whether that
    involves an alto saxophone or a pair of technics decks is irrelevant, i
    reckon. as the wire used to say on it's front cover...'don't compromise,
    improvise'.

    rant over.

    peter



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 03 2000 - 16:52:19 MET