I grew up playing a lot of jazz in the late 2000s and there was always a strict canon - big band was seen as kind of cutesy and not worth putting much effort into while the Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Coltrane, Davis, Hancock, Shorter and a few others were the "real" musicians. But the internet was in its infancy at the time and YouTube/spotify started showing things that I had never heard of like a bunch of Japanese jazz musicians, so I always wonder what musicians coming up today see as "the canon". Is it still mostly the names I mentioned or does it include a lot more?
On a separate note, I always saw Chet baker and Gerry mulligan as "real" musicians but was taught early on that Brubeck was "staid" and boring. After judging it myself I guess you could say his soloing was a little underwhelming but he was incredibly creative in a way that a lot of the "serious" musicians weren't. Jazz people can be such losers sometimes
I think jazz taste has diversified a lot in the last decade and we aren’t seeing a canon outside of cliques. I know myself and other younger folks listen to the artists you listed, I know several who grew up playing in a marching band and enjoy big band, myself I listen to nearly anything.
I mean, it is true that a lot of his solos get busier and bangier until he's hammering out polyrhythms at the end. I just take it as part of the ride when listening to Brubeck.
But I really don't want to listen to other jazz artists emulate that, especially knowing how little chance there is that they'll have the same creativity and sense of rhythm that Brubeck had. (Edit: based on the experience of hearing the banging without the creativity/rhythm-- it's not fun.)
Glad to see Vince Guaraldi prominently mentioned here. Like the author, I got into Guaraldi via the Peanuts music, then found I loved the rest of his stuff as well.
I think Guaraldi is almost like a jazz version of Erik Satie, who’s been discussed here a few times. His music seems very simple, almost simplistic, but his taste and feel are superb. It’s just really good and easy to listen to, which unfortunately means it gets dismissed as “easy listening”.
>Using "easy listening" as a pejorative has always baffled me. Why does music need to be difficult?
Yes, I agree with you, it shouldn't and doesn't need to be.
But some things like music be it Jazz or something else isn't always just matter of listening but way of self establishment, way of life living or pursuing life, way how they seeing themselves and communicate themselves to others. I'm not in to this or studying this or anything else, but it's known behaviour model and you find studies if you like to read about it more.
Right, some Jazz aficionados tend to be like hipsters. Who despise and keep unorthodox anything but their likes would grok. A way of self establishment and having reason to keep themselves different. At least a bit better than others. I'm not claiming everybody are, but I certainly have met few of those quick to classify someone things they like.
I find my self like more West Coast Jazz bands and artists performances older I get. And if I'm not completely wrong it might be a more common trend their share has increased over the past ten or so years playing in radio stations too at least where I live.
Baker has one of the best movie adaptations, has been documented and reissued at nauseum and has worldwide acclaim and recognition. Sounds like mostly an inner-circle type of perspective.
I grew up playing a lot of jazz in the late 2000s and there was always a strict canon - big band was seen as kind of cutesy and not worth putting much effort into while the Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Coltrane, Davis, Hancock, Shorter and a few others were the "real" musicians. But the internet was in its infancy at the time and YouTube/spotify started showing things that I had never heard of like a bunch of Japanese jazz musicians, so I always wonder what musicians coming up today see as "the canon". Is it still mostly the names I mentioned or does it include a lot more?
On a separate note, I always saw Chet baker and Gerry mulligan as "real" musicians but was taught early on that Brubeck was "staid" and boring. After judging it myself I guess you could say his soloing was a little underwhelming but he was incredibly creative in a way that a lot of the "serious" musicians weren't. Jazz people can be such losers sometimes
I think jazz taste has diversified a lot in the last decade and we aren’t seeing a canon outside of cliques. I know myself and other younger folks listen to the artists you listed, I know several who grew up playing in a marching band and enjoy big band, myself I listen to nearly anything.
> his soloing was a little underwhelming
I mean, it is true that a lot of his solos get busier and bangier until he's hammering out polyrhythms at the end. I just take it as part of the ride when listening to Brubeck.
But I really don't want to listen to other jazz artists emulate that, especially knowing how little chance there is that they'll have the same creativity and sense of rhythm that Brubeck had. (Edit: based on the experience of hearing the banging without the creativity/rhythm-- it's not fun.)
Yeah I mean his solos compared to his melodies/song structures or even the other soloists on each song.
But also compared to other prominent pianists of the time like Bill Evans, Herbie Hancock, etc
Glad to see Vince Guaraldi prominently mentioned here. Like the author, I got into Guaraldi via the Peanuts music, then found I loved the rest of his stuff as well.
I think Guaraldi is almost like a jazz version of Erik Satie, who’s been discussed here a few times. His music seems very simple, almost simplistic, but his taste and feel are superb. It’s just really good and easy to listen to, which unfortunately means it gets dismissed as “easy listening”.
Using "easy listening" as a pejorative has always baffled me. Why does music need to be difficult?
>Using "easy listening" as a pejorative has always baffled me. Why does music need to be difficult?
Yes, I agree with you, it shouldn't and doesn't need to be.
But some things like music be it Jazz or something else isn't always just matter of listening but way of self establishment, way of life living or pursuing life, way how they seeing themselves and communicate themselves to others. I'm not in to this or studying this or anything else, but it's known behaviour model and you find studies if you like to read about it more.
Right, some Jazz aficionados tend to be like hipsters. Who despise and keep unorthodox anything but their likes would grok. A way of self establishment and having reason to keep themselves different. At least a bit better than others. I'm not claiming everybody are, but I certainly have met few of those quick to classify someone things they like.
I find my self like more West Coast Jazz bands and artists performances older I get. And if I'm not completely wrong it might be a more common trend their share has increased over the past ten or so years playing in radio stations too at least where I live.
The idea that Chet Baker and some of the others named are not “serious jazz” is too ludicrous to take.
Unknown nobodies like Dave Brubeck.
Baker has one of the best movie adaptations, has been documented and reissued at nauseum and has worldwide acclaim and recognition. Sounds like mostly an inner-circle type of perspective.
"The Latin Side of Vince Guaraldi" is my favorite jazz album cover.
When I think of west coast jazz, I think of Tom Scott and I was surprised to not see him in this article.
Betteridge's law of headlines.
Do ya like jazz? [0]
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLthw2YWb4s