The Jazz Scene of Today

[K-Bee]

Naturally, we all tend to rave about old and obscure jazz funk cuts and strange releases. Nothing wrong with that - I find it very interesting and educational. :)
However, I'd also like to turn the topic around and discuss today's jazz scene a bit, since I feel it's somehow being neglected around these forums.
Surely, I can't be the only one into the jazz music of recent years. There are just so many artist pushing the genre forward and I really enjoy listening to stuf by people like Roy Hargrove, Christian McBride, Uri Caine, Benny Green and Joey Defrancesco.
Obviously, many "older" artist are still doing business as well and newer stuff by Kieth Jarret, Chick Corea and the late great Michel Petrucciani are definetely worth mentioning.

Yes - acoustic jazz music is very much alive and kickin' in this world of samplemania and schmaltzy Kenny G clones.

Somebody around here must be following this kinda music besides me....what are your views and favorite artists in today's jazz music??

[QUINNY]

KBee: Sorry to disappoint you but I'm stuck in the '50s and '60s when it comes to most of my preferences in Jazz.

However, one of my friends who is a great pianist, is very much into Jarrett, Corea and Petrucciani and I've recorded many of their numbers with him and enjoyed them. I think the great trouble with many of today's players is that they don't have a distinctive enough 'voice' and everything more or less stopped with Miles Davis' Kind Of Blue album. I know that's not true, but I'm sure you get my drift. That album was a blueprint for much that has followed.

I'm lucky in that my local Jazz club (where I'm on the committee and do the P.A. at the gigs) is a good one for Modern Jazz and we get most of the best UK players there, along with the odd American/European.
This coming season we have people like Alan Barnes, Jim Mullen, Andy Sheppard headlining gigs along with some of the lesser known players like Matt Wates, Latin from The North, Clair Teale. I'm hoping that we'll get the James Taylor Quartet in the new year and we'll probably be getting Stan Tracey back along with David Newton and a few others.
O.K. maybe they're not exactly the most famous jazzers at the moment, but I get the impression that Jazz is more vibrant in Europe at the moment than in the U.S. The American players that we do get all rue the fact that there's no work for them 'back home'.

In fact, people like Mornington Lockett, Gilad Atzmon, Pete King, Lee Goodall and the like, are truly great sax players based in the UK who get very little recognition outside (OK maybe Pete king and Gilad Atzmon do) and we have some absolutely brilliant pianists. The aforementioned David Newton, John Taylor, Gareth Williams and almost anyone else who appears at Southampton Jazz Club. People like Jason Rebello are just about getting onto the world stage again (well the last I heard he was) and Courtney Pine is supposedly doing well. Guy Barker had an album or two on Verve and has been dropped, but he's a marvellous player when he doesn't overblow.
Unfortunately, image and gloss even sells jazz these days, so many truly wonderful players never get the recognition they deserve and others who are not so talented, but more interested in stardom do. Jamie Cullum must be a prime example. At the moment he's the hottest thing since.......listen to his singing and it's mediocre and his piano playing is less than inspiring.

On the dance front, I really like some of the stuff by Mr. Scruff (even though it's sampled) and who's that really zany Finnish/Norwegian guy?

[Forrrce]

I could happily discuss jazz all day, but it never gets past the jazz-funk stage (and seldom goes that far, even) on this page, therefore I think the jazzers are certainly in a tiny minority.

I myself am of a more '50s and '60s persuasion, therefore I'd probably be doing battle with Quinny alone! As for the 'scene', there's a ton of programmed rubbish released in the name of jazz which even its greatest ambassadors (like Blue Note) now trumpet, in a vain attempt to equate sampling jazz with playing it! The 'new jazz' scene (in these parts at least) basically involves 'players' of limited ability noodling over house arrangements of varying tempi. Maybe add a sample or two, or some crappy computerised Fender 'Rhodes and hey, it's jazz, isn't it? BULLSHIT!

As for current, real jazz releases, I have to admit that since the latter '80s, modern technology has not been kind to jazz. Part of the thrill for me is in the recording - this can stamp an identity pretty much in the same way the best players could. But for too long now, we've been washed down a river of super-clean, digital blandness. Cardboard drum kits, screeching altos, puny bass and toy pianos are what I hear, far too often. Ravi Coltrane's 'Mad 6' from last year is a progressive LP struggling to break free of a shitty, flat, haze of a recording. Nothing breathes, it's just...a mess. On the same hand, the most recent Joshua Redman was typical of the sound which basically hasn't changed for years. It's a sound which completely sucks the life out of the music, reducing it to a digital mush which could have been recorded at any time over the past fifteen years, with nothing to distinguish it from the other formula drivel within that timespan.

Jazz died ages ago, for the most part - I truly believe that many of its 'young lions' (with the exceptions of quite a few, the Russell Watsons, James Carters, Donald Harrisons, Cindy Blackmans, Roy Hargroves, etc) don't have a clue about emotion and simply aren't lean and hungry enough in their Playstation worlds. And with those who should know better, forcing it further from its roots in a vain attempt to keep it relevant and profitable to a cloth-eared, sample-driven public (very much to its cost) its true essence will be diluted beyond recognition in the near future.

[K-Bee]

You're tight quinny. A lot of people are still amazed by the fact that there may actually be life beyond "Kind Of Blue" or "A Love Supreme"and the general idea of classic artists being good and new being just copycats is very much alive and well among jazz listeners worldwide :( Needless to say, many of those "stuck up" listeners are truly missing out on some great stuff!
Many new artists are having very distinct solistic affectations (in fact, Andy Sheppard is a good example of this) - i guess it's just a case of persuading the averige jazz listener into trying something new.

On the dance front, I really like some of the stuff by Mr. Scruff (even though it's sampled) and who's that really zany Finnish/Norwegian guy?

Could that be either Jori Hulkonen or Bugge Wesseltoft? Both of these seem to be on everybodys fav list because of their tendiencies to fuse jazz and electronica.

Oh yeah - on the jazz dance front im very much into Nathan Haines, Teddy G and Kyoto Jazz massive at the moment.

[QUINNY]

I myself am of a more '50s and '60s persuasion, therefore I'd probably be doing battle with Quinny alone!

Forrrce: You'd probably knock me out with the first punch. I love jazz, but I'm not so into it that I know every artist and every line up on every LP they made. I'm very happy seeing bands live and with most of the accepted classic tracks. To me, the essence of Jazz is the live interaction between the players and the audience that can lead to heights never achieved on disc. I'm saying that as a recording engineer who's recorded lotsa live jazz.

[Forrrce]

[To me, the essence of Jazz is the live interaction between the players and the audience that can lead to heights never achieved on disc. I'm saying that as a recording engineer who's recorded lotsa live jazz.

That's a privilege very few have, Quinny, so how you hear the music will be coloured by this. Despite going to gigs on occasion, any audio alchemy I hear is on record or CD.

So what exactly is jazz? K-Bee, would your comments be directed at me, perhaps? There's a point at which something tangible stops being so, a point where it's not what it should be. I don't hold with the belief that jazz and hip-hop come from the same place and should therefore go hand-in-hand. That is a nonsense. Neither do I believe that the electronic bastardisation of a music built on feeling and emotion is 'jazz' either. You can't program a feeling, can you?

All that pretentious drivel by Bugge W., Marc Moulin (what happened?) Koop, etc. is for the same people who had Sade and Soul II Soul CDs on their coffee tables in the Thatcherite era. All style and no-content hogwash, bled dry of anything that could - God forbid - stir the soul. Why do I not hear anything with the fire of a Prince Lasha and Sonny Simmons LP nowadays? Why should music from 40 years ago still kick the ass of all that comes after it? Because it's JAZZ, that's why!!!!

By the way, Scruffy has a site. He makes some OK tunes, some jazzy, even...but don't tell me they're jazz!


http://www.mrscruff.com/

[QUINNY]

Forrrce: I may be a heretic in your eyes by writing this, but did you see The Michael Brecker Quartet from Brecon Jazz festival on BBC4 a week or so back?
In many ways, this epitomises what you and I are saying.

He is one of the icons of Jazz these days, but in essence except for the few odd angular runs this could have been almost any quartet from the late '50s/early '60s. I liked that. but at the same time there was nothing really new on offer. To be honest, I was more interested in piano payer Joey Calderazzo and Drummer Jeff 'Tain' Watts than Michael Brecker.
The rest of the festival (as shown on TV) except for Junior Mance (who's well past it now, shame) featured a real hotch potch of semi jazz and world music (which is now being touted as jazz to the higher brow 'conservatoire' audience, just 'cos it's different and sometimes has complicated voicings/heads).

Yeah, give ME real Jazz!!

[Forrrce]

Quinny,
For a while now, I have truly believed that jazz has nowhere to go, simply because, as I explained earlier, it's not 'itself' anymore when you push it too far.

I missed the concert in question, though I reckon I'd have exactly the same view as you, re. the outcome. Evidently, the foundations the greats laid down are simply too solid for future generations to tear up, though not for want of trying.

Even some of my favourite musicians (Shorter, Hancock, Bobby Watson) have failed to excite me with recent projects - the musicianship is finely tuned but, there's just something missing, a 'something' which has all but disappeared from jazz altogether. Even the titans sound like their next-door neighbours nowadays.

[QUINNY]

Forrrce: It's more or less true and accepted by me, except I still get a real buzz seeing live jazz, as performed in a small intimate atmosphere. I believe the essence, the life blood and sometimes that certain something is still there. True, there's not much technique wise that hasn't been done before (but then you see someone like Gilad Atzmon who can turn everything on its head) and most of the tunes and/or structures are reinventions, but it can still go to far off places. I just love it when someone starts a solo and sounds like he's totally out of it, like he's soloing to a totally different tune, only to reveal where he was headed for all the time some/many bars later. No other music can do that. No other music has that kind of excitement and it's different every time. Marvellous! Recorded jazz very rarely goes that far for some reason.

As I've written many times before. Go to a live jazz gig to see emotion, blood, sweat and real music. To see every sinew being stained, to see the absolute concentration, to see and hear the joy when something goes right is truly a wonderful experience. In London (one of THE Jazz capitals of the world) there's plenty of opportunity.

[Forrrce]

Unfortunately, Quinny, I don't place the same emphasis on live jazz as yourself. I'm sure that if I lived in New York, I wouldn't have time to do anything other than attend jazz gigs. However, I'm not that adventurous when it comes to new talent and more often than not, feel a bit let down when I do see people I really like perform.

There are no shortages of jazz gigs in London, but that's a bit of a problem - there's almost too much! Seriously, though, the best performances I know are, natch, on record. Maybe I'll always be chasing that rainbow, then...

Saw my drum teacher on TV the other night! The Open University showed a program I first saw a few years ago, called 'Jazz, Raga & Synthesizers' which featured Paul Hardcastle and his '19' hit, before moving on to an interview with Michael Garrick and John Dankworth. Cool footage of Mssrs. Garrick, D'Worth, Dave Green on bass and my sticks-man mentor, Alan Jackson, beavering away. The memories of 24 years ago came flooding back!

[QUINNY]

Maybe Jazz artists play more safely these days when they record.
Most Jazzers I know all say that they can never get the same feel in a studio as they can live. Mind you, most of the jazzers I know are not absolute top flight professionals.
I'm sure you realise just how much jiggery pokery goes on these days, even now in Jazz? It's soon gonna get to the stage where you won't be able to hear a Jazz CD release that has a complete solo take on it. They're all beginning to employ rock recording techniques now, including cut and paste. To me, that is really, really sad. That's why live music still appeals to me. What you see is what you get. It's for real including the flaws, which unlike those on record can't be analysed over and over again. I guess in that respect something that's recorded and passes muster, must be better than live.
Bet you never thought you'd see me writing that.

[Forrrce]

No arguments on the 'live' thing. I would cite most of what I like as 'live' in the studio and maybe I can't see the sweat, but if it's there I can hear it.

The classic Van Gelder sound is, for me, the sound of jazz. Today's techniques just can't cut it for the music.

[QUINNY]

Forrrce: Aah, but there's the rub!
Many Jazzers go on about trying to achieve the classic Blue Note or VGerve sound, but they're not willing to compromise and live with the inevitable liveness that those older recording techniques inherantly produce. they want closer sounds and be able to remix tracks afterwards. Those old recordings were down to several factors:
a) Top quality old mics (often ribbon mics) with relatively poor top end response
b) Analogue equipment with relatively high distortion levels
c) A largish, fairly live room to record in
d) A small number of mics to capture more of an overall ensemble sound
e) Precise placement of players and / or microphones
f) Straight mix to stereo or 3 track recorders.
g) Brilliant musicians, at the very top of their game. A good player will always sound a hundred times better than a mediocre one, using the same equipment and techniques.

One of the most satisfying recordings I 've ever done was a stereo pair of a live recording in a medium sized hall. I was the promoter of the gig and was kept busy with everything else. I had no time for placement, just stuck one mic in front of the trumpet player's music stand and the other in front of the saxophonist's. It was a great gig and the overall effect (though balance is lacking at times) is almost like back in the '50s. It was hard bop virtually all the way, with a large enthusiastic crowd. There is a certain edge to both the playing and the recording.

[Forrrce]

Whilst I'm well aware that the techniques, shortcomings and, ultimately, sound of yesteryear is lost forever, I maintain there's no reason for so much of today's recording to sound so bad! :D

One of my favourite LPs from recent years ('In The Now' by Lenny Kravitz's drummer, Cindy Blackman), has a chunky, fat, round and natural sound that's music to my ears. Old Rudy is still in the house - so's his knowledge of how to make a good recording. It's a great LP and if there were more like it around, I wouldn't be so critical of current jazz.

[QUINNY]

Forrrce: Just interested. Does Rudy record onto digital these days? Do you think his present day recordings sound better or worse than back in the '50s & '60s?
Of course, there are those who say the master's ears are shot now and he over EQs at the top end (and always has done).

I bought a Sony sampler CD a couple of years back and was gobsmacked by some of the recording quality and techniques. I thought "Jeez, this is one of the biggest record companies in the world, these are top players recorded in top studios and they end up sounding like this!"
Even little old me could do as good, if not a better job. At that moment I felt cheated.

[Forrrce]

...Good questions.
Van Gelder's standards did fluctuate quite wildly in his earlier work - in fact, right up to the late '60s. I won't bore you with endless titles, but there are marked differences between sessions recorded in a given period. Maybe bad micing could be blamed, or he was just poor on such occasions, but certain dates would lack adequate top and/or bottom, whilst some would just sound over-recorded and fuzzy. I'm not crazy on the original vinyl pressings of certain labels like Blue Note, Riverside and Prestige, so titles that I like enough, I'll buy on CD. In most cases, the CDs sound much clearer and cleaner than the records, but in Van Gelder's case, a few CDs sound just as bad as the vinyl. I, for one, would like to know what went wrong during recording and/or mixdown.

I haven't knowingly heard many new RVG recordings of late, so I can only assume it's business as usual. Over the past few years, he's been re-mastering the Blue Note 1500 and 4000 series in huge chunks, primarily for Toshiba in Japan. I have bought some of these and to be honest, can't hear any difference between them and their '80s US counterparts. A particular favourite I'd waited nearly a decade to see re-issued on CD was Donald Byrd's 'Slow Drag'. It had a short run on Jap. CD in 1993 (I missed it) and I borrowed a mate's copy at the time and put it to DAT. I compared the recent RVG re-mastering to the original Jap. CD's copy and the DAT won, hands down. This latest edition sounds severely fatigued and and a little distorted. Could this just be the ravages of time on the master, or is Rudy past it. Guess we'll never know.

[K-Bee]

So what exactly is jazz? K-Bee, would your comments be directed at me, perhaps?

Forrrce,
My comments about stuck up listeners were not directed at you. I actually had no idea of how you felt about this subject since I didn't read your post until I was finished doing my own (they're about 10 mins apart).

It was really more of a general assumtion. I've been attending live jazz concerts frequently throughout the last 15 some odd years, and more often than not I hear people saying stuff like "it's good but it ain't Miles" and i really get sick of hearing those comments over and over again.

The jazz fraternity seems to be very concerned with labeling new and upcoming artists as "the new this and that (insert the appropiate "classic" artist name here), and I do believe stuff like this really kills off any kind of creativity and musical evolment in the long run. Many newcomers constantly fight for the right to be accepted as individuals and I truly believe the deserve to be so without being labeled for something that they are not.

It's very hard for Jazz music to move on if people constantly refer to the old stuff being better without really explaining why they do feel that way. However, Forrrce, you just did (but thankfuly explained why as well) and I respect that in any way possible even if I do not agree with you all the way (The Johsua Redman album you mention, I can relate to though...it do suck big time :lol: - I'd say: stick to his amazing "Freedom In The Groove album of 1996 - best thing he ever did)

To be honest, I was more interested in piano payer Joey Calderazzo and Drummer Jeff 'Tain' Watts than Michael Brecker.

Quinny,
I'm sure you're aware of this already, but just in case you're not, I highly recommend getting a hold of the two Joey Calderazzo albums "The Traveller" and "In The Door" both released on Blue Note in the early 90s. Explosive stuff indeed ( and I mean that in a good way )

[QUINNY]

Forrrce: Something that came to me about the 'harsh' sound of digital.
Don't you think that the harsh sound of alto and tenor saxes is as much to do with the harder reeds favoured by modern day players as digital technology?
Also, most drummers use plastic heads these days, not natural skin, the woods used are seasoned for less time and more drummers (not necessarily Jazz drummers) don't know how to properly tune a kit. Many of the drummers I encounter (semi pros a lot of them) tend to have their skins really tight, hence the biscuit tin effect.
Less musicians play in completely acoustic bands nowadays and have to either play louder or employ other techniques to help them do battle with thye P.A. system.

Variable recording quality is something else there again. No-one's ears are the same from one day to the next, and long sessions really do fatigue. I know myself that lessons learnt are sometimes quickly forgotten in the heat of the moment. Some musicians just don't let recording engineers do their job, because "that mic's never gonna capture my sound, man"
I'll never forget the time I did a 3 day session and the differences between day1, 2 and 3 are noticeable, especially on the Steinway Grand piano, where the mics never moved from beginning to end. Why? It was all down to atmospherics and humidity.

I love digital 'cos it really does come back at you, as it went down. Maybe, just maybe, the perceived better sound of analogue was a happy accident. For me the jury is STILL out.

[Forrrce]

K-Bee,
I hope you can understand why I assumed you were griping at my post. I'm too young to be an old fogey, at least I think so. I don't necessarily disagree with the points being raised here, but as they say, one man's meat...
I do, however, prefer an older sound for many reasons. I wish I didn't, but I just do. And for the reasons I outlined earlier, I find most modern jazz lacking in drive and character. Every now and then, something comes along and surprises me, but this doesn't happen often. One of, I think, the best LPs for the past 20 years, 'World Trade Music' by Francisco Mora Catlett (CMP/Planet E, 1999) turned out to be unused sessions from 1987! I was about to eat my words (re. the state of current jazz) then I met the man and obtained his first LP, from which the sessions originated. So, nearly fell for it...

I suppose my point is, I like what I like. I'm down with the shortcomings and deficiencies of older recordings. I love it. I don't mind tape hiss, a bit of distortion here and there, biscuit-tins drums (love 'em...just ditch the cardboard these guys play on nowadays!) and chunky piano sonics that ring like death knells; olde worlde reverb and cymbals that RING (insert polite 'Dammit')! I even get a kick out of the overambitious limiting levels on '60s European recordings.

Technology and jazz seldom mix in my household and I wouldn't want it any other way. :D

...But, believe it or not, I still audition current jazz. Just so many times, I wish I hadn't bothered. Maybe you and Quinny are right and I should get out more.

Quinny,
As a non-pro drummer who doesn't have his own kit, wishes he had - and hasn't played for the best part of 20 years, I must admit I'm rather behind on what they're beatin' on these days!!!! :o

[K-Bee]

Forrrce,
I think I know how you feel and I know you're definetely not the only one. I can't really get too much into the whole tech issue about recording jazz since I know close to nothing about it. However, i suppose older recordings of the fifties and sixties do have a certain charm to them that more recent recordings lack. Whether it is because of the digital recording technology I don't know. Digital recordings are supposed to create some sorta broad & crystal clear sound but I don't think they succeed in doing so all the way. I have many US recorded cd's from the nineties that really sound nasal and boring with no emphasis of the mid register whatsoever (for instance - the Michel Pettrucciani Blue Note releases)

:lol: I must admit that tape hiss and unbalanced volume levels has a somewhat odd "swing" quality to them. I mean the old verve recordings with Bill Evans (with the very loud Philly Joe Jones on drums)
would just sound so strange with out the distortion.

I even get a kick out of the overambitious limiting levels on '60s European recordings.

Could that be Hans Georg Brunner-Schwer's german MPS label you're thinking about?.....I just love the sound of those recordings

[QUINNY]

K-Bee,
I hope you can understand why I assumed you were griping at my post. I'm too young to be an old fogey, at least I think so. I don't necessarily disagree with the points being raised here, but as they say, one man's meat...
I do, however, prefer an older sound for many reasons. I wish I didn't, but I just do.

Technology and jazz seldom mix in my household and I wouldn't want it any other way. :D

...But, believe it or not, I still audition current jazz. Just so many times, I wish I hadn't bothered. Maybe you and Quinny are right and I should get out more.

Oh dear Forrrce, it does sound like a mild dose of old Fogeyitis to me or mid life crisis. Doctor Quinny (who's been through it years ago and learned to live with it) says................. :lol: but seriously, if you're looking for a pastiche of the '50s/'60s heyday I fear you'll be disappointed. Loadsa bands are faithfully playing all the old warhorses and then some, but very few are writing new material that comes close. Maybe seeing a few of the bands that recreate the era would be of interest, if only to see and hear the material live, with the bonus that you can close your eyes and for a brief moment imagine you are sat in a Jazz club some 45 years ago. Some of the older guys especially, have that certain something and play tunes with an edge, maturity and vitality. If you ever get a chance to see Bobby Wellins with Stan Tracey and hear him do a ballad, you'll know what I mean. Just beautifully timeless and absolutely sublime. Peter King IS 'Bird' if you catch him on a straight ahead gig. His albums are more cerebral.
Maybe you have seen these guys and they didn't cut it for you.

[Forrrce]

K-Bee,
MPS and its like are exactly what I had in mind! Some of the GiGi Campi material from Cologne, Amiga records, etc. - I just think a little dose adds excitement.

Quinny, whatever makes you think I'm into pastiches? I simply require modern jazz to have guts and balls. You can't put me down for that!!!! 8)

The last golden oldie I saw was Elvin Jones at Sconnie Rott's, last year (I think!) and, bless him, he seemed to have deteriorated vivsibly and audibly since his previous visit some 18 months earlier - not unknown for someone in their 70s. Long live the bad-boy from Detroit!

[QUINNY]

By pastiche, I meant it in the purest sense, in so much as any band playing music from 50 years ago or written as if it's 50 years ago, HAS to be a pastiche. It dsoesn't mean that music, technique etc hasn't moved on in the meantime or that they won't be different from what they're trying to copy. I just thought you'd be happier seeing a band that had some leanings to the past rather than not.

I'd still say the one truly easy way to get some guts and balls from today's Jazz is to see some of it upfront at a live gig, especially someone like Gilad Atzmon or Mornington Lockett. Gilad especially, has a huge stage presence and if you can forgive him his political outbursts, he has the ability and sheer muscularity to bowl anyone over. I've never seen him hold back for even a second. His attack is awesome.
There's plenty of guys older than you or I who get one hell of a kick out of a great many of today's players that we have at SJC. Most of them are the Full Monty, the Real McCoy.

[Forrrce]

Fair dinkum, Quinny. Though have you noticed that, 3 pages later, we've ended up 'doing battle' (without the bloodshed) after all? I thought maybe a couple of other forum members may have something to say on the subject - if not on the music itself, at least on some of the technical issues raised. I guess jazz is as popular as it's always been in my lifetime!

[QUINNY]

And I thought that was a kiss ya blew me!!!