[Dixielandjazz] Evolution or Creation in Jazz

[Steve Barbone]

David Richoux <tubaman at tubatoast.com> wrote

> At Healdsburg Jazz Festival, the tradition is untraditional
> David Rubien, Chronicle Staff Writer
> 
> Tuesday, June 5, 2007
> 
> Sometimes conversations about jazz start to sound like the debate
> between evolutionists and creationists.
> 
> In the evolution corner, advocates point out that, duh, jazz has
> evolved at breathtaking speed from the ragtime and stride of the
> early 20th century to the post- post-whatever that exists today, and
> argue that without constantly transforming into the next new thing,
> jazz ceases to exist in a meaningful way.
> 
> In the creationism corner, advocates, using Ellington or Monk as
> stand-ins for the Lord, sayeth, "In the beginning there was the
> blues, and there was swing, and, verily, it was good." Anything that
> deviates from those two fundamentals is the work of pagans and
> heathens, not real jazz, easily dismissed.
> 
> This is an argument that the creationists won a long time ago. The
> top creationist, Wynton Marsalis, rules the roost, and the
> evolutionists have had to make accommodations.
> 
> The institutional focus of jazz since 1980 has been relentlessly on
> tradition, on exalting and studying -- the evolutionists would say,
> "copying" -- the masters. This year, during SFJazz's Spring Season,
> the subject was Thelonious Monk. In the recent past across the
> country we've seen cottage industries spring up around John Coltrane
> and Louis Armstrong.
> 
> That's all fine, as far as it goes. But if jazz is going to look
> backward, why not take a less predictable route? Why not consider
> some of the dozens of artists who may not be considered "the giants,"
> but who are brilliant players nonetheless, and who were engines of
> important movements in the music? And significantly enough, many of
> them are still alive and performing.
 
> more at
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/05/
> DDGM2Q5NH71.DTL
> 
> or http://tinyurl.com/2lv9yz

Interesting article Dave, though I disagree with his take on Marsalis and
think the evolution vs. creation is a bit of a stretch. Thanks for the post.

If Marsalis views rule and are creationist, than how come the institutional
focus on jazz since the 1980s "has been relentlessly on tradition" . . . and
"copying the masters"? That sounds more evolutionary to me. Especially given
the Marsalis emphasis on Bolden and other N.O. Jazz players.

Seems to me that Marsalis is one of the engines of evolutionary jazz.

Different strokes, I guess. :-) VBG.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone