[Dixielandjazz] Straight Ahead

Tue, 31 Dec 2002 13:33:27 -0800

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3124186408_819676_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Hello Rob,

What a wonderful writing, and I have to agree with you 100%

Sincerely,

Flip Oakes

http://www.smsjb.com

Flip Oakes =B3Wild Thing Trumpets=B2
COME AND HEAR THE DIFFERENCE
http://www.flipoakes.com

"To read what  Wild Thing owners say about their horns, click on this"
http://www.flipoakes.com/testimonials.htm

Flip Oakes=20
2559 Mottino Dr.
Oceanside, Ca. 92056
760-643-1501
760-643-1511 FAX

To Hear the Flip Oakes Wild Thing Trumpet go to
http://www.flipoakes.com/multimedia.htm

From: "Rob McCallum" <rakmccallum@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 02:18:47 -0500
To: "djml" <dixielandjazz@ml.islandnet.com>
Subject: [Dixielandjazz] Straight Ahead

Hello all,
=20
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 progressiv=
e
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 an=
d
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 betwee=
n
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 Bir=
d
or Coltrane. As much as I hate to admit it (because I don't care for fusio=
n
and have, until recently, written it off as non-jazz), is a logical step ou=
t
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 th=
e
color of the jazz palatte. To clarify, I'm not suggesting that music that i=
s
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.
=20
All the best,
Rob McCallum
www.solarjazz.com <http://www.solarjazz.com>

--MS_Mac_OE_3124186408_819676_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Dixielandjazz] Straight Ahead</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Hello Rob, 
 
What a wonderful writing, and I have to agree with you 100% 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Flip Oakes 
 
http://www.smsjb.com 
 
Flip Oakes =B3Wild Thing Trumpets=B2&nbsp;&nbsp; 
COME AND HEAR THE DIFFERENCE 
http://www.flipoakes.com 
 
&quot;To read what &nbsp;Wild Thing owners say about their horns, click on =
this&quot; 
http://www.flipoakes.com/testimonials.htm 
 
Flip Oakes 
2559 Mottino Dr. 
Oceanside, Ca. 92056 
760-643-1501 
760-643-1511 FAX 
 
To Hear the Flip Oakes Wild Thing Trumpet go to 
http://www.flipoakes.com/multimedia.htm 
 
 
<HR ALIGN=3DCENTER SIZE=3D"3" WIDTH=3D"95%">From: &quot;Rob McCallum&quot;=
 &lt;rakmccallum@hotmail.com&gt; 
<BLOCKQUOTE>Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 02:18:47 -0500 
To: &quot;djml&quot; &lt;dixielandjazz@ml.islandnet.com&gt; 
Subject: [Dixielandjazz] Straight Ahead 
 
</BLOCKQUOTE> 
<BLOCKQUOTE>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. &nbsp;It is=
 often called &quot;mainstream&quot; and is generally used to differentiate =
this &quot;mainstream&quot; jazz from more progressive experimental musical =
forms and tends to apply to small groups rather than big band. &nbsp;&nbsp;F=
or instance, people like Ornette Coleman, the Art Ensemble of Chicago, Leste=
r Bowie and SunRa would fall into &quot;avant-garde&quot; categories and gro=
ups like Weather Report, Pat Metheny, John Scofield etc. would fall into fus=
ion as &quot;opposed&quot; to &quot;straight ahead jazz&quot; which would en=
compass everyone from, let's say, Oscar Peterson to Dexter Gordon. &nbsp;It'=
s a distinction that makes more sense with later than earlier jazz styles. &=
nbsp;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 &nbsp;&quot;straight ahead&quot; bag &nbsp;i.e. mean=
ing that anything progressive that takes place will do so within the establi=
shed (standard) jazz forms. &nbsp;People who play &quot;straight ahead&quot;=
 nowadays would include Benny Golson, Terence Blanchard, Geri Allen, Eric Al=
exander, Wynton Marsalis, usually Branford Marsalis, Mulgrew Miller etc. &nb=
sp;It's a distinction often used by modern jazz purists who use it as a dist=
inction to differentiate &quot;real&quot; jazz from the other forms that mak=
e 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 &quot=
;real&quot; jazz and &quot;modern.&quot; 
 
Personally, I think all of these categori=
es tend to get irritating and are, at best, blurred. &nbsp;What Bird did is =
a logical step out of what Lester did, which was a logical step out of what =
Bean did. &nbsp;In the same way, what Ornette did is firmly grounded in the =
melodic approach that Bird laid down. &nbsp;Likewise, much of Coltrane's wor=
k is derived from his association with Miles' groups of the 1950's as well a=
s earlier styles and certainly Monk's approach resembles the approach of Duk=
e Ellington far more than it does Bird or Coltrane. &nbsp;As much as I hate =
to admit it (because I don't care for fusion and have, until recently, writt=
en 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 cont=
ributions to jazz theory since Coltrane, certainly some of the fusion, espec=
ially with Latin styles, has added to the color of the jazz palatte. To clar=
ify, I'm not suggesting that music that is most certainly not jazz, but is m=
arketed as &quot;jazzy&quot; or &quot;smooth jazz&quot; is a legitimate offs=
pring of jazz; &nbsp;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, Straig=
ht Ahead, Modal, Avant-Garde etc. etc. etc. These distinctions are helpful t=
o guide a listener to a style to what he or she wants to listen to (If I wan=
t to hear a band playing the New Orleans style I might like to know that bef=
ore I buy a recording or buy a concert ticket), but little else. &nbsp;Perso=
nally, I'd rather just set all of these distinctions on fire and let the &qu=
ot;jazz&quot; speak for itself. 
 
All the best, 
Rob McCallum 
www.solarjazz.com &lt;http://www.solarjazz.com&gt; &nbsp; 
 
</BLOCKQUOTE> 
</BODY>
</HTML>

--MS_Mac_OE_3124186408_819676_MIME_Part--