Please... Can We Stop Saying Jazz Is Dead Yet?

[@TypingHazard]

Two minutes in and I have a hot take - Jazz is every other genre's favorite genre to steal from. It's not dead, it's just been thoroughly pilfered.

[@huntermoffitt3959]

This is a good point, and I would also add that I would love to see a number of how many session musicians and artists of other genres at least went to school for Jazz.

[@CWBella]

BTW, this was the first "media" I heard this morning - and a great way to start the day! Thanks, guys!

[@allanlaskeyguitar]

Peter recommended "This One's for Blanton!" in his top jazz albums list and it has become one of my favorite albums. Thanks for that.

[@nevetsny1]

The lead character in La La Land trying to “save” jazz was so annoying.

[@bentaylor4705]

Tell me about it. The guys from whiplash already saved it like 10 years ago.

[@wildrice1971]

Jazz and I were out for drinks, voices were raised, tensions got heated. Jazz started the fight ... I finished it. Sorry.

[@MrRossharrell]

Big Bad Plus fan here! I pre-ordered their newest release on vinyl

[@geocosmicvalentine]

I am waaaay behind on my GALA dues. Another great conversation I wish I could be in on!

[@CWBella]

The jazz musicians I know who are making a living at it also teach part-time privately or in the local school system or community college, as well as gigging. Most are also married to someone who has a more traditional job or is a musician who is part of the school system so they get health and retirement benefits. Just got to piece at all together.

[@BobMazzo]

So true. My good buddy in town here in NJ does exactly that; he teaches privately and at a college, as well as does gigs, etc.

[@karlvanbeckum9029]

You guys are great!! Thank you so much for this podcast. Cheers!

[@ColasFalon]

"Jazz is dead" is an expression. One that does not serve us well in facilitating clear communication, but nevertheless it gets thrown around a lot. If I discard the clever expression, and try to specify particular phenomena, communication becomes more clear and debate/discussion can become more fruitful. Here are a few examples of attempts produce more tangible topics of discussion: "Jazz is no longer the most popular mainstream music." (And we can discuss the possible factors involved with the change.) or "Jazz can currently be pursued as an academic endeavor. In the past it could not be." (And we can discuss the pros and cons of approaching jazz in academia versus outside of academia.) or "The prioritization of improvisatory performance has become common in other genres and subgenres that are adjacent to the genre of jazz." (And we can discuss how improvisation has differences and/or similarities when it is found in other styles/genres of music.) To say "Jazz is dead" means almost nothing to me when I hear it spoken/written...UNLESS/UNTIL the speaker/writer give greater context and clarification about what he or she means. If you want to say something like "Jazz doesn't have the social relevance that it once had." ...this is something that people can disagree on, but yet still be able to have clarity in communication. But again, if you just say to me "Jazz is dead" then I'm going to wonder what precisely you mean, and more importantly I'm going to wonder what the goal of your statement is. The very word "jazz" doesn't even have a consistent, singular meaning. So even just using the word "jazz" leads me to ask "What do you mean by 'jazz' in the context?" And this brings us to another important aspect of this conversation, which is the frequent misapplication of naming conventions. In general, it is a source of confusion and division across a large number of ideas/topics (not just jazz). Language construction/creation/evolution was largely "meant" to INCREASE clarity/distinctions/boundaries, but as we've moved into modernity it more and more often has the result of actually decreasing clarity and distinction. While there are multiple ways to name/label a thing/idea, they aren't all equal (insofar as they do well to clarify the boundaries of real-world categories). One of the most obvious issues with regard to people discussing "jazz" as a genre/style/art-form is the "semantic battle." Admittedly this is derived simply from observation, and I am not certain where my blind-spots might be, but nevertheless it does appear to be an almost one-to-one correlation; people talk about jazz = people make less than optimal choices in articulating taxonomy labels. A great amount of confusion and disagreement around this topic (and so many others) derives from people's erroneous assumption that the "process" and the "processors" are dominant factors in naming conventions. While this is certainly a possible way to go about labeling things, it tends to fail at capturing the accurate reference to the real-world category that those things exist within. "Jazz" (like any genre/style) IS in fact a convergence of a large number of characteristics (some having greater weight than others). When you toggle any of those axes too far, you begin to push/pull the boundaries of that real-world category. And when you toggle enough of those axes, in combination(s), you arrive at a different genre/style. The reason that jazz history becomes difficult around the 70s, is parallel to the history of the T-rex in the 1990s...there really isn't any. There might still be jazz in existence (beyond the 70s), but it is no longer the dominant music. And more importantly, the other music that evolved out of jazz...isn't jazz. Using the jurassic park analogy, we might be able to recreate/clone jazz long after its natural extinction. But we don't call birds dinosaurs. Now granted there is no clear and precise point in time where we can mark things off, but that doesn't negate the argument that the music/genre/style of jazz peaks in its form/design somewhere between roughly 1910 and 1970, and anything that deviates wildly from the characteristics of that simply isn't jazz. The reason that people of discuss "jazz" as a "feeling" or a "spirit" is often because they have clung to a single (or a couple) characteristic(s) as being part of the essence of jazz (and this is problematic because no single characteristic/axis is sufficient for measuring the boundaries of the category) and thus they are applying that aspect to other music that is not jazz yet is associated with jazz due to the overemphasis of whatever respective characteristics one is prioritizing. (The most common example of this is people labeling any/all music that features horns/reeds improvising as being "jazz" even when the actual genre/style is leagues away from jazz.) Improvisation is a mode of composition (at a compressed time frame). It is not a stylistic characteristic. Improvisation can be used as a mode of spontaneous composition for any and every style/genre of music. The musical genre of jazz exists completely independently from modes of composition. (This is to say one could produce a work of jazz that feature absolutely no improvisation in the performance/recording and the stylistic category would still be jazz.) The vast majority of "modern jazz" is not jazz. Occasionally an artist will actually create/record something that is jazz but that is not the norm. Music since the 70s has diverged from the center of jazz far enough that it is no longer accurate to refer to it as jazz. But if one prioritizes specific characteristics, or "processes" and "processors," it is predictable that they will mislabel works as being "jazz." So this brings us back to the idea of "jazz is dead" and the possible argument that the actual genre of jazz only exists today due to our ability to clone/replicate ancestors. Much like if I said "homo erectus is dead" because I observe that the dominant form is now homo sapiens, even though with some science fiction technology we were able to clone homo erectus. In this fictional scenario, it would be incorrect to still refer to homo sapiens as homo erectus (regardless of any evolutionary connection) and it would also be pointless to say "homo erectus is dead." The genre of jazz does not organically thrive in this age. It is preserved and cloned and simulated and interpolated and restored. But it still doesn't help the conversation to say "jazz is dead."

[@lain9719]

Wittgenstein would be proud of your excellent digression, but it misses the forest for the trees. The claim "x is dead" has been made about pretty much everything (science, technology, philosophy, religion) - development is slow and incremental at best, unimpressive on the whole. Culture is dead and collectivism killed it. Those who are nostalgic for the American spirit of freedom and individual responsibility may be able to restore it, if they figure out how to replicate the ethic that gave rise to it in the first place. I see no signs of this yearning elsewhere. We'll see. This phenomenon transcends politics and it seems people have not understood what Peterson was relentlessly getting at when he became famous.

[@thomasmarcelmusic5878]

Peter and Adam, 1. GALA 2. would love to hear you two talk about Julian Lage's career / work. I think he also really exemplifies what you were saying about Sullivan Fortner in that his playing is highly sophisticated and artistic but also accessible

[@sdkjsfkjwh67-un9lx]

Adam is absolutely rocking the black ivy look 👌 Would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the Jason Jules book!

[@Benjiboyonehunnid]

Peter Martin reminds me of A tribe called quest's Phife Dawg... this is the highest compliment i can give

[@edzielinski]

A very refreshing and inspiring session. It's interesting how there's a direct correspondence between operating in life and operating in the world of music. Consider these: Being open, curious, respectful, vulnerable, actively listening and taking care when you speak, and only saying what is needed (and not more), being encouraging, engaging with others in a productive way, adding to things instead of taking away, being constructive rather than reductive. Those things generally produce good results in music, and in life. I'm not going to address the topic of the title directly, as there is nothing that I can say that would add to this excellent podcast. 22:38 - This is where Adam hits the nail on the head

[@bryanmeyers5476]

Henry Pleasants, a music critic now deceased, began his book Serious Music and All That Jazz with a bias statement “Serious music is a dead art”. He missed the mark in my opinion because Jazz is a form of serious music. We have not yet exhausted the musical form or musical theory. I agree with you that serious music, including jazz has no limits and will continue to be new to those who want to discover and push the limits of creativity.

[@davidsummerville351]

It's been dead for over 50 years. Old news. 😊😁😄😎🤓

[@RhythmSectionSL]

Great topic guys! Jazz isn't dead long live Jazz! Private parties will still always be a thing. That's our main source of revenue right now. There will always be a need for Jazz for so many events

[@zekielrodriguez5229]

Jazz is so much deeper than that. Humanity needs it

[@alphaomega6062]

I think it was Frank Zappa who said "Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny"

[@mrdaddy6686]

Zappa indeed Legendary comment

[@geocosmicvalentine]

Zappa! Always showed up with the truth! 😎👍🏽

[@TranquiloTrev]

Jazz is probably the only genre that isn't overwhelmed with original music. Every other genre has largely original music. Jazz doesn't. I believe that is why it is not as popular as other forms, or as popular as it was. Younger people do not understand the impact the jazz form with its songs had 60 years ago. Those songs do not have the same impact now, that they had 60 years ago. Jazz needs an infusion of original songs to have a chance to regain its popularity.

[@robinsarchiz]

I agree it's good to focus on new creations. But I think there is a lot of creativity, it's just labeled as jazz fusion because it sounds new. If people were making new jazz songs in the old style, that wouldn't have that big of an impact I think since it's been done before. Any of the great musicians in history was great precisely because they invented a new style. And so I think it's alright if jazz becomes something else. We can still listen to Oscar Peterson while enjoying Hiromi Uehara's new album.

[@TranquiloTrev]

@@robinsarchiz Good points made, even though I do not agree with them.

[@BobMazzo]

and to add to that - we have to keep in mind many of the standards that came out of shows and movies. We rarely have that anymore (with the exception of Cats and Phantom, etc; however not in a jazz context).

[@robinsarchiz]

@@TranquiloTrev When you say that jazz needs an infusion of original songs, what would that look like?

[@jman12849]

The genre is already unpopular, and the casual listeners aren't seeking out new tunes; they just wanna hear the classics. I don't have any proof, but I'd imagine that jazz is one of the few genres where the bulk of the audience are musicians of that genre themselves. Modern original tunes sometimes lean towards fusion / avant garde / some other genre, and that puts off the casual listener expecting a 'jazz' experience. Modern tunes that sound like they're from 1960 also aren't popular, because then they're just regurgitating the past. Can't really win. I don't think straight-ahead jazz will ever be popular like it once was (except for film scores or when someone needs 'sophisticated' background music); the future of the music is when used in other genres like neo-soul, fusion, hip-hop, etc.

[@Lucas-fh5dl]

Adam....that fit...

[@djshmul1]

Jazz will live forever ,the theory behind it and many more much interesting then anything else the pop music has to offer,same goes for a classical music its timeless

[@johnthornton3863]

Love jazz and want musicians to make a good living. True improvisational jazz requires education to appreciate. There is music that is fairly popular that is complicated and interesting as you say “jazz adjacent”, but not classic: Reservoir, Ill Considered, Robert Glasper’s crossover albums, Terrance Martin, Badnotgood, Blue Lab Beats, Kasa Overall, Bigyuki, High Pulp. The Blue note books jazz adjacent musicians.

[@bassomatic6055]

The problem is that the term jazz is so overloaded. There's Winston's version and then there's Glasser and everything in between and beyond. I prefer to think of it as improvisational music and it is certainly not dead nor is bebop language even if you don't swing

[@IRACEMABABU]

Jazz is a music who was born/dead or dead/born, as you wish. Since it's very beginning there's people predicting it's funeral in a few monthes, but in fact, never died or was near at all to die. Even more it's a music who has influenced all the others, step by step, in the shadows. For instance, someone (don't remember who, sorry) explained that nowadays all the classical trumpet players have a very small kind of vibrato in their sound due to Louis Armstrong, which was unknown before him...

[@klangobjekt]

Any new jazz club or jazz record label is pretty much DOA at this point. The market for jazz is microscopic. I have spent lots of money on jazz concerts and jazz records. It is hard to find a jazz show now. Jazz was supported by mafia club owners for many years. They made money off of drugs, illegal gambling and strippers. Jazz was just a sideshow, not where the revenue came from. It is not viable anymore.

[@ElbowsUnique]

I blocked that channel because seeing that documentary annoyed me so much.

[@benjammin4840]

Jazz is dead, long live jazz!

[@tunesmiththeman]

Quincy was great! But there are/were some debates how good he actually was as a (bebop) trumpet player. 😉

[@CJasonThwaites]

Jazz has been dead since the (insert your preferred timeframe here). In 2024 Jazz has more people consuming it than ever before in human history. AND! In the last 3 years I have finally managed to get a hold of some of the most impossible to find vinyl I spent 3 decades looking for.

[@ryanmcgeary4939]

Come on man don't play while he's talking lol. Love you guys thanks 👍

[@Chachoes]

Jazz is not fuggin dead 🙏😭

[@4elijah028]

the lady in the beginning

[@JCKtube]

Jazz is not dead. It's not the current popular genre. Will it return to the forefront? Maybe...

[@benzo277]

Jazz is dead in the sense that its cultural relevance has diminished significantly.

[@mitchkahle314]

American capitalism killed jazz-few are willing to pay much for it. The $5,000 instrument, $500 car, $50 gig meme is not far off from the actual experience of most jazz musicians.

[@CellZealot]

'Tain't dead...

[@j0nall3n]

Jazz? You mean that saxophone music my Grandpa listens to? I guess I don't mind that Baker Street song

[@camtaylormusic]

Hahahaha

[@GizzyDillespee]

So... who killed jazz? It seems like your answer is nobody, but if someone HAD killed it, then the culprit would've been the decline of good paying physical venues, and the rise of social media, and therefore Laufay, by proxy? But thanks to online audiences and snooty events planners, but not so snooty that they hire a string quartet, there are still opportunities to play jazz. And you mentioned jazz-adjacent music, such as jazz festivals. It's evolved with culture and technology, is what happened. If it had died, then you wouldn't be able to remember any good new jazz from this year, but you can. I know it's such a trope to make the claim, but proper clickbait would say jazz is collapsing. Does the algorithm like "dead"? People are always going on about "un-aliving" rather than dying, in vain attempts to remain advertiser friendly. But ol' Algo likes things collapsing, apparently.

[@kwyatt261]

Hear me out: jazz needed professionalism when the very culture it came from was oppressed so that racist white people could get into it. Now we know better and we know what to expect from this term called "jazz." Jazz musicians need to rethink that side of things. Jazz needs mystery, jazz needs controversy, jazz needs edginess back. In the 30s and 40s, the guy playing trumpet up on stage might have had a personality, jazzmen of today are sooooo tame, educated, well behaved.

[@Bruce.-Wayne]

It seems every now and then a clown pop up on youtube saying "Jazz is Dead" blah blah....I saw one just last week rambling the same nonsense