The Estate of Jazz

Like any music of depth and quality, the performance of jazz by well-rounded musicians is affected by three influences or considerations. First, they draw from their knowledge and understanding of historical tradition - the styles, settings and environments of the musical past. Second, they execute in the present, in relation to their own personal beliefs, experiences and relevant musical interactions. And third, they look to the future in an attempt to define their own musical direction. A stellar performance by jazz musicians would depend on their careful balance of all three aspects, for if an excessive partiality were shown to any single one, an unbalanced performance would likely result. For example, when we hear a performance too immersed in recreating the styles of the past, it may lose vitality and urgency due to the measured techniques needed to facilitate the reconstruction of a style or solo concept. An over emphasis on past styles runs the risk of presenting music as a museum piece. On the other hand, when musicians play without regard to the past by only imitating current styles without a clear understanding of their lineage and development, a very one dimensional, naive performance will result. It is only when musicians embrace these two musical considerations that they can proceed in defining their own musical futures, which involves several important prerequisites. First, they must possess technical mastery of their instrument. A corollary to that is they must constantly pursue the development of their musical ear. At the same time, musicians must realize that they must use musical theory to compensate for any deficiency in ear-training. Also, though often relegated to a minor role in the development of musicians, they must have a thorough knowledge of the living history and development of the jazz idiom. Starting with the recordings of Joe "King" Oliver and continuing to those of the present, jazz musicians must realize that all of these musical styles bear a direct relationship to their own. They must realize that without Louis Armstrong there is no Roy Eldridge, hence, without Eldridge, no Dizzy Gillespie, and so on. Jazz is truly an idiom that has an abundance of real and tangible resources: sound recordings and critical, analytical and technical printed matter. These resources, coupled with an acute awareness of the relationship of music to all aspects of their present social, economic, and artistic environments, help jazz musicians open doors to their creative existence. But what makes jazz musicians complete? Quite simply, it is their ability to improvise effectively - to fuse their total inner self to their musical self in conjunction with their external and ethereal experiences - to join the essence of existence to presentation of sound - to find their own voice. And it is a true voice when it is in alignment with the afore-mentioned considerations – a voice that will start each performance with a fresh and rejuvenated perspective on improvisation. Sometimes it is a voice that will contain familiarities, even clichés. But on the best days, the voice will always walk a narrow line, balancing perspectives on history with the possibilities of what can happen in a specific moment. During a jazz performance, a musical moment will occur, remain for a brief moment, and unless captured by recording, disperse forever. Jazz performers will not likely dwell too long, if at all, in the moment passed as they are already targeting and preparing to execute the next musical moment. However, when a particularly poignant moment occurs, the initial desire will be to somehow recapture this moment for posterity. For most jazz musicians, however, the desire is fleeting, as they had rather move on to their next musical endeavor rather than savor the ecstatic feeling of hearing a replay of a past moment of their performance. The essence and beauty of a jazz performance is often found in the moment of conception and immediate execution. Everything afterwards is relegated to analysis, history, and critique. Fortunately, through recordings we are able to trace the paths taken by the great artists. But we can only witness a small but integral part of these artistic performances. Most jazz musicians are prolific performers, but this author would surmise that for every performance captured by recording, at least 1,000 have escaped into the air. It is also interesting to note that many jazz musicians, or for that matter, musicians in general, feel inhibited in the recording studio. Most jazz musicians feel that their best performances were done in the conducive and interactive environment of nightclubs when there were no recordings made. Finding one's voice through the performance of jazz is an adventure that starts the first time musicians play a note on their instruments, and continues until they can or will no longer play. For aspiring jazz musicians there are infinite decisions and choices they will face, the most fundamental being what to play. Part of Charlie Parker's genius lies in his ability to understand the styles of his predecessors and use them as a resource for the execution of his own ideas. Today, Parker is considered the key figure in the development of Be-Bop or the “modern” movement in jazz. His ability to be a part of changing the way we think of music is a staggering achievement. There have been many studies conducted on how and why this happened, but the answer is no easier than explaining with absolute certainty why birds sing or salmon swim upstream. Perhaps luck plays a part – a sort of an alignment of factors that occurs very rarely, like the passing of Halley’s comet. But once these innovative ideas took root, what occurred thereafter? For many musicians, it became a game of follow-the-leader. Certain musicians (Art Pepper is a good example) had to fight every instinct to copy what Parker was doing – and it was hard! The world of improvisers wanted Charlie Parker just as twenty years earlier they wanted Louis Armstrong and twenty years later would want John Coltrane. But if young aspiring musicians undertake proper historical research, they will realize that though the names of Armstrong, Parker and Coltrane loom regal and supreme in improvised music, they were not the only names that rode the crest of influence. They were just the names that rode the highest. For example, during Armstrong’s heyday, Bix Beiderbecke was forging his own style, which owed almost nothing to Armstrong. In fact, Armstrong and Beiderbecke each considered the other to be the greatest musician. This is perhaps the best example of the importance of the individual voice in jazz. Both of these musicians played essentially the same style of music; both were aware of what the other was doing; both were influenced by the other; yet both retained his individual voice. Their only common bond was the need to present music on their own terms. Musicians in the present time can emulate styles by copying Armstrong or Parker's recorded solos verbatim, which will greatly enhance all aspects of their technical development. But ideally, they will to use them only as a foundation on which to base their own explorations. For modern jazz musicians, Be-Bop is a most revered form of study, but at some point the players must push out and not rely solely on its conventions as the basis of a style. It is important that musicians have a clear understanding of the music of their own time. How wonderful it must have been to be an up and coming musician from the 20’s to the 60’s. Jazz was a melting pot. Everything was new. Not so by the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. After the amazing inventions of John Coltrane and Ornette Coleman, little new has been added to the jazz vernacular. While jazz certainly is not dying on the vine (in fact, judging by the upswing of jazz education in college and high school programs and the increase in recording activity, one could say jazz is thriving as never before), there certainly seems to be a lull in the arena of groundbreaking innovation. It is especially apparent in the young jazz musicians of the present who not only have been super-schooled in the styles of 40’s Be-Bop, mainstream styles of the 50’s and 60’s and occasionally the so-called avant-garde, but who have also studied and absorbed the stylings of contemporary or popular music. And more often than not, they have also studied and/or performed the music of great composers from J.S. Bach to Alban Berg and beyond due to the almost unlimited resources provided through technical and educational media. There are more recordings to hear, more educational methods, and more music schools with programs focused on the contemporary musician. Today musicians have personal computers, sequencers, advanced rhythm machines, instructional videos and an ever-expanding array of electronic technology all within their grasp, and not the least of these advancements, easier access to the medium of sound recording. Until the late 1980’s it took a large amount of money for a musician to make an album. Digital technology has changed all of this. For a fraction of the cost, musicians can record and even manufacture their own albums. For proof, simply notice the number of local CD releases in the past year and compare it to the number of local recordings released in, say 1982. But somehow, instead of causing an explosive chain reaction of creativity, digital technology has instead fostered a movement towards the reactionary. How are contemporary jazz musicians expected to retain their own individualism and relation to their music when they are constantly inundated and literally overwhelmed by their musical past? Pianists of the late 19th century endured a similar situation when the virtuosic flights of Franz Liszt made it all but impossible for aspiring performers to be anything but a student of the standards set by Liszt. He was close enough to the age of recording to literally nail the lid shut since a plethora of Liszt protégées were able to set down for eternity a facsimile of the master’s style. Still, we must remember that though not nearly as encompassing as the school of virtuosity for virtuosity’s sake fathered by Liszt, there were other important musicians making sound contributions to the medium. By many accounts, Clara Schumann and her compatriots were likely the purest musicians of their or arguably any era. It is a pity that that sound recording so closely missed these great people so we could judge by our own ears. Unfortunately, we are often a society that not only abides by categorization, but also feel we can measure relevance, even greatness, through categorization. We revel in the great debates that ask questions like: “What is art and what is not art?” or “What is proper and improper performance?” This “age of anxiety” for improvised music, especially jazz music, has left too much free time for open debate and has spawned benign battles that are fought as if art is a game of football. Even worse, the result has often been a complacent or “middle of the road” feeling in journalism. In the 1950’s through the 1970’s we looked to critics for honest and insightful encouragement and constructive criticism of the work of artists. Nowadays we often get only platitudes and endorsements. Compare the record reviews in Downbeat magazine from the 1960’s to the ones written today. Could we imagine John Coltrane receiving a bad review in 2002? He did in 1961; in fact, he was so controversial that he received more than his share of negative reviews in his lifetime. Perhaps, it is a version of the chicken/egg syndrome. Musicians of today are not playing and recording music with the depth and daring of the musicians of the past, thus, journalists have less substance to work with. Throughout history, when creative artists strayed too far from the mainstream, they were often perceived as curious or abhorrent. Not every person listening is so willing to accept something “different” from the path well trodden. Mimicry fosters its own comfort zone. But it takes more than just doing something that has never been done before to catapult artists to the “innovator” category. It takes artists doing something that has not been done before and when presented makes a lot of other people either want to do it or support it. But this presents an interesting viewpoint: does music have to be innovative in order to be vital? We should hope not. Duke Ellington once stated that there are only two kinds of music - good and bad. Now the big questions: When is music good? When is music bad? We can benefit and improve our musical intellect by listening to the “bad” as well as the “good” – provided we can tell the difference. The term "jazz" has come to describe a body of music so diverse that anyone interested will have his own definition. For example, to some, music is jazz only when it is performed acoustically. Wynton Marsalis, a brilliant and virtuosic musician, beside being arguably the most well known jazz musician of the present era is also the most reactionary of contemporary musicians in any genre. His performances and recordings pay deep homage to the styles of Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong and Thelonious Monk, so much so that he could be considered a classicist. His immense popularity has given rise to the old becoming new again and it is through this that Marsalis has defined his own musical voice. In the 1980’s, his public statements denouncing the use of electronic instruments in jazz merited critical attention, considering his stature as an artist. His opinion invited us to look at electronic technologies and determine whether or not they have a place in the creation and expression of jazz music. Upon examining the electronic music Miles Davis, Pat Metheny, Weather Report, Chick Corea, and Herbie Hancock were creating and performing in the 1970’s and 80’s, we must ask “Are the crucial elements of jazz still salient in this music?” In the opinion of many, these elements are present and vital in the music of these artists who use electronics innovatively. Rather than lessen, they actually increase the possibilities of the jazz genre and expand its horizons. This movement became one of the most popular of any era in jazz. But with popularity came increased revenue, and when that happens, the doors to mass marketing and commercialism open. As a result, in order to appeal to an even larger audience, a watering down of these styles occurred. The most palpable representations of the music were exploited while the vital aspects were left by the wayside. It is almost comical to think somehow that the lineage that began with the groundbreaking “Bitches Brew” ended up with Kenny G. Perhaps. Marsalis was right. Is it possible he could see what this music would become and took a personal stance hoping to somehow ”head it of at the pass?” An interesting situation – a man whose art is reactionary but his criticism, visionary. Of course, this is simply good-natured conjecture, but in the spirit of fostering individuality in creativity, Marsalis' opinion does have validity. It is important to note that jazz is a living art – an art created, presented and absorbed in real time. It is something personal and unique to anyone who has connection with it. In the appreciation of it, the bottom line is its subjectivity and in essence, there can be no single definition of what it is or means. However, there are elements that differentiate jazz from any other art form, the most salient of which is the emphasis on individuals using improvisation as the primary musical focus in the performance of music. And when a group of jazz musicians perform, a harmonious existence emerges – one reflecting a common bond, unity and ensemble. But, at the same time, each musician uses the musician’s own individual voice: a voice that chronicles history; a voice that speaks in the present; a voice that asks aloud “where to go now?” It is a voice descended from the legendary Buddy Bolden, and a voice that will pass to future generations of improvisers - the voice that "calls its children home.” Joe LoCascio is one of our finest pianists, a prolific and inventive composer and an established jazz educator. In addition to releasing numerous nationally acclaimed jazz albums, Joe has played with dozens of world renowned artists including Chet Baker.