[Dixielandjazz] Straight Ahead
Rob McCallum
rakmccallum@hotmail.com
Mon, 30 Dec 2002 02:18:47 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C2AFA9.C9192F80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello all,
Straight Ahead is a kind of blanket term applied to most jazz (inclusive =
of swing and post-Bop) and tends to apply to more modern jazz idioms =
than generally discussed in this forum. It is often called "mainstream" =
and is generally used to differentiate this "mainstream" jazz from more =
progressive experimental musical forms and tends to apply to small =
groups rather than big band. For instance, people like Ornette =
Coleman, the Art Ensemble of Chicago, Lester Bowie and SunRa would fall =
into "avant-garde" categories and groups like Weather Report, Pat =
Metheny, John Scofield etc. would fall into fusion as "opposed" to =
"straight ahead jazz" which would encompass everyone from, let's say, =
Oscar Peterson to Dexter Gordon. It's a distinction that makes more =
sense with later than earlier jazz styles. For instance, groups like =
Modern Jazz Quartet, Horace Silver, Clifford Brown, Art Blakey and the =
Jazz Messengers and pre- Bitch's Brew Miles Davis would all fall into =
the "straight ahead" bag i.e. meaning that anything progressive that =
takes place will do so within the established (standard) jazz forms. =
People who play "straight ahead" nowadays would include Benny Golson, =
Terence Blanchard, Geri Allen, Eric Alexander, Wynton Marsalis, usually =
Branford Marsalis, Mulgrew Miller etc. It's a distinction often used by =
modern jazz purists who use it as a distinction to differentiate "real" =
jazz from the other forms that make claims to be jazz (or imposed on =
jazz by fusion and vanguard), in much the same way that some OKOM =
purists differentiate between a definition of "real" jazz and "modern."=20
Personally, I think all of these categories tend to get irritating and =
are, at best, blurred. What Bird did is a logical step out of what =
Lester did, which was a logical step out of what Bean did. In the same =
way, what Ornette did is firmly grounded in the melodic approach that =
Bird laid down. Likewise, much of Coltrane's work is derived from his =
association with Miles' groups of the 1950's as well as earlier styles =
and certainly Monk's approach resembles the approach of Duke Ellington =
far more than it does Bird or Coltrane. As much as I hate to admit it =
(because I don't care for fusion and have, until recently, written it =
off as non-jazz), is a logical step out of what was happening to jazz in =
the late 1960's, though I don't think that anyone has made any major =
contributions to jazz theory since Coltrane, certainly some of the =
fusion, especially with Latin styles, has added to the color of the jazz =
palatte. To clarify, I'm not suggesting that music that is most =
certainly not jazz, but is marketed as "jazzy" or "smooth jazz" is a =
legitimate offspring of jazz; I'm only suggesting that there are =
differentiations in modern idioms much as there are in the more =
traditional approaches (Ragtime, New Orleans style, Chicago style, =
Dixieland, Swing, Revivalism etc. and so on and so on), Be-bop, Hard =
bop, Cool, Mainstream, New Thing, Fusion, Straight Ahead, Modal, =
Avant-Garde etc. etc. etc. These distinctions are helpful to guide a =
listener to a style to what he or she wants to listen to (If I want to =
hear a band playing the New Orleans style I might like to know that =
before I buy a recording or buy a concert ticket), but little else. =
Personally, I'd rather just set all of these distinctions on fire and =
let the "jazz" speak for itself.
All the best,
Rob McCallum
www.solarjazz.com=20
------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C2AFA9.C9192F80
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2722.2800" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hello all,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Straight Ahead is a kind of blanket =
term applied to=20
most jazz (inclusive of swing and post-Bop) and tends to apply =
to more=20
modern jazz idioms than generally discussed in this forum. It is =
often=20
called "mainstream" and is generally used to differentiate this =
"mainstream"=20
jazz from more progressive experimental musical forms and tends =
to apply to=20
small groups rather than big band. For instance, people =
like=20
Ornette Coleman, the Art Ensemble of Chicago, Lester Bowie and SunRa =
would fall=20
into "avant-garde" categories and groups like Weather Report, Pat =
Metheny, John=20
Scofield etc. would fall into fusion as "opposed" to "straight ahead =
jazz" which=20
would encompass everyone from, let's say, Oscar Peterson to Dexter =
Gordon. =20
It's a distinction that makes more sense with later than earlier jazz=20
styles. For instance, groups like Modern Jazz Quartet, =
Horace Silver,=20
Clifford Brown, Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers and pre- Bitch's =
Brew=20
Miles Davis would all fall into the "straight ahead" bag =
i.e.=20
meaning that anything progressive that takes place will do so within the =
established (standard) jazz forms. People who play "straight =
ahead"=20
nowadays would include Benny Golson, Terence Blanchard, Geri Allen, Eric =
Alexander, Wynton Marsalis, usually Branford Marsalis, Mulgrew Miller =
etc. =20
It's a distinction often used by modern jazz purists who use it as a =
distinction=20
to differentiate "real" jazz from the other forms that make claims =
to=20
be jazz (or imposed on jazz by fusion and vanguard), in =
much the=20
same way that some OKOM purists differentiate between a definition =
of=20
"real" jazz and "modern." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Personally, I think all of these =
categories=20
tend to get irritating and are, at best, blurred. What =
Bird did=20
is a logical step out of what Lester did, which was a logical step out =
of what=20
Bean did. In the same way, what Ornette did is firmly =
grounded in the=20
melodic approach that Bird laid down. Likewise, much of =
Coltrane's=20
work is derived from his association with Miles' groups of the =
1950's as=20
well as earlier styles and certainly Monk's=20
approach resembles the approach of Duke Ellington far =
more than=20
it does Bird or Coltrane. As much as I hate to admit it=20
(because I don't care for fusion and have, until recently, written =
it off=20
as non-jazz), is a logical step out of what was happening to jazz =
in the=20
late 1960's, though I don't think that anyone has made =
any major=20
contributions to jazz theory since Coltrane, certainly some of the =
fusion,=20
especially with Latin styles, has added to the color of the jazz =
palatte.=20
To clarify, I'm not suggesting that music that is most certainly not =
jazz, but=20
is marketed as "jazzy" or "smooth jazz" is a legitimate offspring of =
jazz; =20
I'm only suggesting that there are differentiations in modern idioms =
much as=20
there are in the more traditional approaches (Ragtime, New Orleans =
style,=20
Chicago style, Dixieland, Swing, Revivalism etc. and so on and so on), =
Be-bop,=20
Hard bop, Cool, Mainstream, New Thing, Fusion, Straight Ahead, Modal,=20
Avant-Garde etc. etc. etc. These distinctions are helpful to guide =
a=20
listener to a style to what he or she wants to listen to (If I want to =
hear a=20
band playing the New Orleans style I might like to know that before I =
buy a=20
recording or buy a concert ticket), but little else. Personally, =
I'd=20
rather just set all of these distinctions on fire and let the "jazz" =
speak for=20
itself.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3DArial>All the best,</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rob McCallum<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.solarjazz.com">www.solarjazz.com</A>=20
</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C2AFA9.C9192F80--