The problem is that "jazz" is way too broad a term, encompassing everything from Derek Bailey and Art Ensemble of Chicago, through Trad and Big Band, Charlie Parker and Miles Davies , to George Benson, Sarah Vaughan and (god help me) Kenny G.
It's like asking someone what "classical music" means to them — is their answer engendered by Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Stockhausen, Pärt, Reich, Nancarrow or Macmillan?
Or "pop"... you get the idea — you'll likely get as many answers as the descriptor encompasses.
It's some sort of corollary of "mu" — "unask the question", because it can't get a meaningful answer (see, eg, Robert M. Pirsig's "Zen & The Art...")
Yes, this is critical. "Could you give me some examples of what you call jazz," is what has to be asked. A lot of kids lump "jazz" in with "easy listening!" Go figure!
I think Louis Armstrong addressed this issue best when he said, "If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know." Ted is asking an "all of the above" question, not doing a deep dive in whether or not college kids are more into Bela Fleck or Benny Goodman.
Speaking as one of those inscrutable youngsters you like to study, I can offer some insight. I’m a college student and I engineer a jazz radio show on our campus station. There are a lot more jazz enthusiasts than you might think among my age group! I love jazz and agree with you that it’s far more exciting and startling than “romantic”, but I think my peers have the perception that it’s the product of a bygone age, something quaint and charming like black and white movies. Also, it’s not at the forefront of counterculture how it used to be (no one is writing articles about the sinfulness of jazz today!) so it doesn’t have the appeal of rebelliousness that a lot of young people seek out in music. I think a lot of it is a matter of attention span too. 10 minute songs are implausible.
Nina, your comments really hit the mark for me. I believe that the jazz of the 50s - 70s was more a part of a counter culture thing. Nowadays “jazz” is academic and serious. In the old days the musicians took the popular music of the day and said - were going to do it our own way. Jazz fans were part of a cool underground and the music was deep but relatable. It made you cool to love jazz and be a part of that bohemian lifestyle. When jazz got institutionalized and codified in school, much like classical, it got disconnected from that alternative cultural connection and less popular with young people.
Did jazz get "codified in school, much like classical", or, like classical music did it simply evolve intellectually beyond easy rhythms and catchy licks? Don't get me wrong, I love Benny Goodman and Louis Armstrong and Harry James and Gene Krupa, but Dizzy Gillespie and bee bop took jazz in a much more purely intellectual direction and those who followed could only take that further or risk looking like sad dinosaurs. Western art music (as I prefer to call "classical") had no choice but to evolve (or devolve depending how you look at it) into atonalism and minimalism and I think jazz has inevitably followed a similar trajectory. In that case, it is unsurprising that it "lost" much of its youthful audience, especially when popular music/rock/whatever you wish to call it, provided danceable rhythms and lyrics that reflected lived reality. I find it disturbing that when I go to events hosted by people in the 20 to 35 year age group they are playing music from the 70s and 80s, the music of MY youth. I wonder, where is your voice represented musically? Where are your bands, your superstar icons? Young people are not fooled by the commodification of music and are mourning the death of live bands and a culture that they can't experience even if they want to.
Nina, I have kids close to your age, and they feel the same way. My daughter played trumpet in the high school jazz band, although she has no interest in performance, she does enjoy and appreciate listening to jazz. There's plenty of reason for optimism!
After reading this, I asked my 15 year old son, who is currently finalizing his audition piece for the “Jazz Lab” at his public high school, to use one word to describe jazz. He said “life” - because jazz has more “heart, soul and mind” than any other form of music. Granted, he’s probably not a typical 15 yr old; he’s been listening to Kind of Blue since age four, loves Jordu by Clifford Brown and listens to Headhunters by choice. But, he listens to a lot of other music typical for kids his age. If he can be an advocate for jazz among his peers, that’s progress.
This for me explains the democratic Hyperion represented by the epistemology of jazz which starts with holding your colleagues in tenderness and respect. This epistemology is reflected in the humanist devotion (moral force) all modern artists and musicians are trained in -which is the submission of our subjectivity to objective critical anslysis.
This is the mutual human communion that underlies the jazz epistemology which is fully intelligently participating in a culture, not just reciting a catechism.
Jazz is actually a portal to a higher mutual understanding of our humanity.
This is what makes it so painful when it’s trivialized as a commercial genre.
Sex before marriage no longer has adverse physical consequences (pregnancy) but its emotional and social implications have vast and dangerous ones. The marriage convention helped protect single virginal women from having to judge between"dads and cads". Marriage not only protected her but assured males that his wife's children were HIS,not someone else's. (Unfortunately this is taken to extremes in some cultures and religions, by curbing women's freedom and confining them to private places). This is the bargain between the sexes, and it worked out amazingly well, not 100% but enough to allow the creation of societies and social arrangements that reduced conflict and enhanced personal relationships, i.e. the family. When there is a bond (love) between two people, usually man and woman, this lays the groundwork for a stable relationship that favors
offspring and the benefits of a long-term affinity to support and educate them. The western
practice of preserving marriage even with some infidelity has worked quite well. And those who tried to deny ir or disrupt it are generally not looked on as admirable: the Don Juans, the Fausts,
the Epstein's. Today's free unrestricted sexual liberty absolves males from their commitment and
takes away the shame of premarital sex from women. But this will not prove conducive to societal
stability or psychological and emotional sanity. It is counterevolutinary in its extreme, in removing
responsibility, commitment, empathy and the strong family bond that enables children to grow up
sane and socially responsible. We are starting to see the blow-back now with sexual confusion about identity (gender). The truly scary notion that we should allow teen agers to mutilate their
bodies just because they have some quite normal adolescent anxieties or peer pressure is arguably one of the most immoral human practices in history. We should all be scared about this and its potential to ruin the lives of many teenagers irrevocably.
That is a great comment, and it took some moral courage for you to make it. So far, no one has insulted you, probably because an unapologetic statement of truth such as you have just made shocks people into paralysis. Thank you.
This article and many other' of Ted's touches on an underlying creeping these (IMHO) of the plague of instant gratification, that has not only made all but a total capture of modern society, but been marketed to that same captive society, by the regime since the burgeoning 60's.
As you alluded to, the courtship/relationship and subsequent marriage was a societal norm, that was valued. Buying the cow before you could milk it, was not looked at as an antiquated idea, but conveyed the message "if what this person has to offer is so valuable, you are required to make a commitment, in order to have it"...whatever IT may have been.
Of course it was those primal sexual lusts, that both sides felt the draw of/want for, but there was also a social convention that forced them, to learn about, understand and more often than not, appreciate the focus of their desires. Those maniacal, hormonal urges were tempered and/or enhanced, by an abiding regard, respect and value for the person across from them during a courtship...before sex.
Not so, any longer.
I wrote advice pieces a while back, in the hay day of Craigslist personals. Back then I had a few female friends, that would ask (as would their female friends)," why did I get ghosted, we had sex and I never heard from him again, he posted the same add after we had just had sex that same night...etc.....why???"
My answers always explained the rise of the instant gratification, social scene (yes it's always been there, but it was being sold in music, movies and media, like crazy) and that society had systematically stripped away the value of delayed gratification, dating and courtship...labeling them as old, misogynist, creepy, pathetic and more. I also would delve into the little understood sex and porn addiction facets, that the "new" un-dating carried.
It was cool to hook-up...after all everyone was doing it...right? Anon orgasms were the new conversation...to be had with whomever and wherever one could, as many time as possible.
Of course they all felt used, dejected, betrayed and burned. I would ask them...
"If the guy was out for sex, and you gave it to him...within hours of meeting ONLINE...without demanding he know, understand and appreciate you...past your three bodily orifices' and breasts...then why would you be surprised that he moved to the next instant gratification challenge? You basically told him what you thought your worth was, by granting him access, with no parameters...and he agreed."
I would ask, "So in hind sight, don't you think you are worth more, that you are more than a receptacle for his orgasm, that you are worth the time to get to know and appreciate, as a person?? This is what dating and courtship gave to people. A sturdy vessel to ride the troughs in, between waves of exhilaration and passion."
You're statement sums it up so well....
"Today's free unrestricted sexual liberty absolves males from their commitment and takes away the shame of premarital sex from women. But this will not prove conducive to societal stability or psychological and emotional sanity. It is counterrevolutionary in its extreme..."
Great writing, as I always think when I read your essays, Ted Gioia—even though Gregorian Chant and polyphony are the only music I listen to any more. I used to listen to R&B and jazz when I wanted to be hip, and I got a smug kick from the sexual reference we believed was the origin of the name jazz (even though the origins of the word jazz are disputed), but I pursue other ambitions now. When I mentioned I met your brother Dana, sacred music scholar William Mahrt mentioned to me that you and he have had friendly interactions, so I'll bring up that he teaches jazz rhythms, and instruments like pianos, drums, saxophones, and cornets, have certain associations that don't belong in Mass. Jazz carries the same sensual associations into the minds of its listeners no matter what their religion. I know I am putting myself far outside the pale of edgy intellectual with-it-ness when I point out that jazz stirs up feelings that are usually better left unstirred . . . . What do you think of my heresy? :-) Your friendly- if-not-entirely-agreeing-with-you admirer.
William Mahrt is a lovely person, and also a great leader of vocal ensembles, which I've heard on dozens of occasions. He also played a role in my career even before I met him. Shortly after I started teaching jazz at Stanford, Prof. Mahrt visited my class—I think he had been assigned the job of evaluating the new jazz program and unusual people teaching in the program. I didn't even notice him that day (I had a large class in a kind of auditorium room)—he just sort snuck into the room—so I just taught in my usual exuberant manner, oblivious to the fact I was getting evaluated. But I later heard that Bill reported back to authorities that I had passed the audition and was doing good work. I did later get to know him and benefited from his wise and beneficent worldview.
From a players point of view, Jazz has never stirred up "feelings that are usually better left unstirred." Sounds like something one would hear said by a church goer. Again, as a player, it was about the music and not about anything else.
"And it’s no surprise to me that people look for music to fill the gap in their lives. After all, music is still a reliable source of enchantment, even in a digital age."
My girlfriend grew up with very little romanticism in her dating life. Me being quite a few years older and remembering analog dating, I have tried to show her romantic gestures, but they don't seem to hit quite like sharing intimate music!
When I played for her Sleep Token's "The Summoning", with the end of the song being what I and others call "Sexy Metal", she couldn't take her eyes off of me, to say the least. I'm hoping this, and Jazz, in some weird way can help younger people find their way to a magic that was once well and truly alive. The world would be a much worse place if it was lost forever.
I took the time to watch the linked video of the talk at the Library of Congress and have now been introduced to Danto’s theory that art is no longer on a path of progression. Wow, it makes so much sense! That explains so much of what I’ve observed in classical music the last 30 years. I still see young composers striving to reach that next nebulous step of progression and failing to register with audiences.
Ted: I’ve written about what you term the “new jazz revival” and have visited swing dance halls loaded with young people. I have found myself asking, “Why are these folks dancing to music older than their grandparents (the geezers)??!”
Through action, they have answered my question. They say they don’t go there to “hook up,” but to dance. (The joy on their faces tells me the reason.) They have told me, “Swing music is a wonderful expression of the human spirit, especially in terrible times,” and “It’s almost a religious experience, I am so in the moment.”
The young folks on dance floors today dress for comfort, not romance. They go to rock-step and swing out. No high heels or haute-couture dresses in those places! And yes, plenty of new young bands have sprung up to accommodate the dancers.
So yes, jazz is “eternally young…a style of music alive in the moment….” These young folks make music/dance central to their lives—the cake, not the frosting. They all talk about their “community.” (“We go out in groups.”) I like to think they can bring their joy and community to this darkened world. Spread jazz dance across the land!
It is a conundrum to keep the beat alive in these hard times. Jazz may bring rebirth—but these days, the nation leans the other way. Many young folks are lost in the woods, just as the MAGA crowd live in a lie they don’t see. Thus, the disappointment in their voice. Without hope, enchantment vanishes.
My basic philosophy is that jazz music can open a wormhole through darkness. It’s about signifying—what Albert Murray calls the “riff-style lifestyle.” Murray has said, “Riff-style flexibility and an open disposition towards the vernacular underlie the incomparable endurance of black soulfulness or humanity.’” Maybe such bottom-up freedom brings its own enchantment.
In dance, we have signifying in action, a way to turn things around, swing them in another direction. When dance went out of jazz after WWII, we lost something. But some young folks are bringing it back. There is still hope!
Loren Eiseley has written, “I have seen a tree root burst a rockface on a mountain or slowly wrench aside the gateway of a forgotten city.” This natural truth, I think, could take us far.
I don't think a recording of jazz can be more than a souvenir of the experience of a live, relatively unamplified jazz performance. I love making records and do the best job I can, but music is more than any recording. It is a comment on what is happening in the world at that moment.
I think a recording of any music is always a shadow of the live moment. My husband and I went to a live concert of James Morrison Primal Scream album. It was him (being an unbridled genius) and four of the top session trumpeters in Australia. My husband had played with a couple of these guys during the Frank Sinatra tour of Australia back in the early 90s and he said they were incredible. To be fair, compared to Morrison, the other four seemed to be working very hard indeed, but that translated into incredibly vibrant and exciting musical collaboration. On the album Primal Scream, James Morrison plays all the parts himself. It's far more perfect than that performance, but it feels dead. You'd think one Morrison is good, five must be better! But it isn't. Similarly back in the early 90s Gidon Kremer released an album of him playing both parts in Bach double concertos. It was known amongst Australian classical musicians as "Gidon Kremer Plays with Himself" :)))
“If they grow up to become jazz fans, they just might buy one of my books.” If they grow up to become real jazz fans, they just might buy all of your books.
Hi Ted, thanks for another great article, I find myself having similar questions about my generation. When most people’s referents for jazz are La La Land, la vie en rose sound bites on tik tok or street performers in central park, it makes sense why they would associate jazz with romance. Funnily enough, the movie whiplash was my intro to jazz and for most of high school that’s what I thought it was. Only until I dug deeper into the music did I find what it was all about and now I think of jazz more in the way you described. Just for fun, here’s some replies to your questions from a young person’s perspective (22 yo): 1) young people love live music and seek it out all the time usually either at bars or clubs or shows of their favorite artists or bands when they’re in town, local band scenes are somewhat scarcer today, being a DJ is the hot thing 2) most gen z kids can pick out songs they like from bands from the 70s through the time of The Strokes but only the ones really into rock and its sub genres (all the way from jam bands to metal) could say who’s hot rn, personally I really like Loathe 3) anyone and everyone really, celebrities are going viral for missteps all the time but usually if they take themselves too seriously or are not self aware that creates a big target (think of the video of celebrities singing imagine) 4) i think most people my age love their parents music, there’s a real reverence and appreciation for 90s music in particular 5) I think everyone knows most K-pop is trash (at least modern K-pop, many already yearn for the older days when it was still good) that doesn’t detract from it being fun to listen and dance to 6) everyone knows Elvis but do they listen to him?… 7) definitely but will they listen to it instead of on their Spotify?… personally I love cds because that’s what my parents had I have my own collection that I listen when I drive Hope this was informative, cheers
I forgot the most important one! I’ve rarely ever danced to a live band outside of weddings and family parties. This was so shocking to me bc I’d never thought of it! But it’s true, if people my age want to dance it’s always a club with a DJ, crazy!! In Latin America though there’s definitely more of this, I see it every time I visit my family in Mexico, dancing to live bands is much more common
It will be a sad day when folks cannot distinguish A.I. mashups of the greats from the real Sinatra, Davis, Vaughan, etc. Or maybe we're already there. Real music is more and more haute cuisine that must be studied to appreciate. Actually, it always was.
Rod Dreher writes about it all the time in his Substack. He has just finished an as yet unpublished book about it. He favors psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist's explanation. I think McGilchrist's book is The Master and his Emissary.
I started reading The Master and his Emissary, but got busy and it's a book that demands your full attention. It's still on my shelf, so maybe I'll give it another go. Personally, I have never lost my sense of enchantment and often point out to others tiny things that go unnoticed, magical things, like a fleeting shadow. They light up for a second. Some go on to start noticing, in others the shutters seems to almost instantly come back over their eyes.
What a fascinating comment! I'm a Christian believer, and envy those Christians who can sit for hours in Eucharistic adoration, or devote much of their lives to prayer.
I'm not one of them.
I know that McGilchrist's thesis has to do with the loss of right hemispheric dominance over consciousness. When I was seven, I was almost killed, and have a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. It seems to have affected dominantly right hemispheric function, and because of that, as fascinated as I might be by all of this, it's not within my grasp to try to stimulate that kind of noticing. I've gone through life envying those for whom it comes easily.
The problem is that "jazz" is way too broad a term, encompassing everything from Derek Bailey and Art Ensemble of Chicago, through Trad and Big Band, Charlie Parker and Miles Davies , to George Benson, Sarah Vaughan and (god help me) Kenny G.
It's like asking someone what "classical music" means to them — is their answer engendered by Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Stockhausen, Pärt, Reich, Nancarrow or Macmillan?
Or "pop"... you get the idea — you'll likely get as many answers as the descriptor encompasses.
It's some sort of corollary of "mu" — "unask the question", because it can't get a meaningful answer (see, eg, Robert M. Pirsig's "Zen & The Art...")
Yes, this is critical. "Could you give me some examples of what you call jazz," is what has to be asked. A lot of kids lump "jazz" in with "easy listening!" Go figure!
I think Louis Armstrong addressed this issue best when he said, "If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know." Ted is asking an "all of the above" question, not doing a deep dive in whether or not college kids are more into Bela Fleck or Benny Goodman.
Speaking as one of those inscrutable youngsters you like to study, I can offer some insight. I’m a college student and I engineer a jazz radio show on our campus station. There are a lot more jazz enthusiasts than you might think among my age group! I love jazz and agree with you that it’s far more exciting and startling than “romantic”, but I think my peers have the perception that it’s the product of a bygone age, something quaint and charming like black and white movies. Also, it’s not at the forefront of counterculture how it used to be (no one is writing articles about the sinfulness of jazz today!) so it doesn’t have the appeal of rebelliousness that a lot of young people seek out in music. I think a lot of it is a matter of attention span too. 10 minute songs are implausible.
Love your newsletter!
Nina, your comments really hit the mark for me. I believe that the jazz of the 50s - 70s was more a part of a counter culture thing. Nowadays “jazz” is academic and serious. In the old days the musicians took the popular music of the day and said - were going to do it our own way. Jazz fans were part of a cool underground and the music was deep but relatable. It made you cool to love jazz and be a part of that bohemian lifestyle. When jazz got institutionalized and codified in school, much like classical, it got disconnected from that alternative cultural connection and less popular with young people.
Did jazz get "codified in school, much like classical", or, like classical music did it simply evolve intellectually beyond easy rhythms and catchy licks? Don't get me wrong, I love Benny Goodman and Louis Armstrong and Harry James and Gene Krupa, but Dizzy Gillespie and bee bop took jazz in a much more purely intellectual direction and those who followed could only take that further or risk looking like sad dinosaurs. Western art music (as I prefer to call "classical") had no choice but to evolve (or devolve depending how you look at it) into atonalism and minimalism and I think jazz has inevitably followed a similar trajectory. In that case, it is unsurprising that it "lost" much of its youthful audience, especially when popular music/rock/whatever you wish to call it, provided danceable rhythms and lyrics that reflected lived reality. I find it disturbing that when I go to events hosted by people in the 20 to 35 year age group they are playing music from the 70s and 80s, the music of MY youth. I wonder, where is your voice represented musically? Where are your bands, your superstar icons? Young people are not fooled by the commodification of music and are mourning the death of live bands and a culture that they can't experience even if they want to.
Nina, I have kids close to your age, and they feel the same way. My daughter played trumpet in the high school jazz band, although she has no interest in performance, she does enjoy and appreciate listening to jazz. There's plenty of reason for optimism!
After reading this, I asked my 15 year old son, who is currently finalizing his audition piece for the “Jazz Lab” at his public high school, to use one word to describe jazz. He said “life” - because jazz has more “heart, soul and mind” than any other form of music. Granted, he’s probably not a typical 15 yr old; he’s been listening to Kind of Blue since age four, loves Jordu by Clifford Brown and listens to Headhunters by choice. But, he listens to a lot of other music typical for kids his age. If he can be an advocate for jazz among his peers, that’s progress.
Your son is an artist.
This for me explains the democratic Hyperion represented by the epistemology of jazz which starts with holding your colleagues in tenderness and respect. This epistemology is reflected in the humanist devotion (moral force) all modern artists and musicians are trained in -which is the submission of our subjectivity to objective critical anslysis.
This is the mutual human communion that underlies the jazz epistemology which is fully intelligently participating in a culture, not just reciting a catechism.
Jazz is actually a portal to a higher mutual understanding of our humanity.
This is what makes it so painful when it’s trivialized as a commercial genre.
Sex before marriage no longer has adverse physical consequences (pregnancy) but its emotional and social implications have vast and dangerous ones. The marriage convention helped protect single virginal women from having to judge between"dads and cads". Marriage not only protected her but assured males that his wife's children were HIS,not someone else's. (Unfortunately this is taken to extremes in some cultures and religions, by curbing women's freedom and confining them to private places). This is the bargain between the sexes, and it worked out amazingly well, not 100% but enough to allow the creation of societies and social arrangements that reduced conflict and enhanced personal relationships, i.e. the family. When there is a bond (love) between two people, usually man and woman, this lays the groundwork for a stable relationship that favors
offspring and the benefits of a long-term affinity to support and educate them. The western
practice of preserving marriage even with some infidelity has worked quite well. And those who tried to deny ir or disrupt it are generally not looked on as admirable: the Don Juans, the Fausts,
the Epstein's. Today's free unrestricted sexual liberty absolves males from their commitment and
takes away the shame of premarital sex from women. But this will not prove conducive to societal
stability or psychological and emotional sanity. It is counterevolutinary in its extreme, in removing
responsibility, commitment, empathy and the strong family bond that enables children to grow up
sane and socially responsible. We are starting to see the blow-back now with sexual confusion about identity (gender). The truly scary notion that we should allow teen agers to mutilate their
bodies just because they have some quite normal adolescent anxieties or peer pressure is arguably one of the most immoral human practices in history. We should all be scared about this and its potential to ruin the lives of many teenagers irrevocably.
That is a great comment, and it took some moral courage for you to make it. So far, no one has insulted you, probably because an unapologetic statement of truth such as you have just made shocks people into paralysis. Thank you.
An excellent comment!
This article and many other' of Ted's touches on an underlying creeping these (IMHO) of the plague of instant gratification, that has not only made all but a total capture of modern society, but been marketed to that same captive society, by the regime since the burgeoning 60's.
As you alluded to, the courtship/relationship and subsequent marriage was a societal norm, that was valued. Buying the cow before you could milk it, was not looked at as an antiquated idea, but conveyed the message "if what this person has to offer is so valuable, you are required to make a commitment, in order to have it"...whatever IT may have been.
Of course it was those primal sexual lusts, that both sides felt the draw of/want for, but there was also a social convention that forced them, to learn about, understand and more often than not, appreciate the focus of their desires. Those maniacal, hormonal urges were tempered and/or enhanced, by an abiding regard, respect and value for the person across from them during a courtship...before sex.
Not so, any longer.
I wrote advice pieces a while back, in the hay day of Craigslist personals. Back then I had a few female friends, that would ask (as would their female friends)," why did I get ghosted, we had sex and I never heard from him again, he posted the same add after we had just had sex that same night...etc.....why???"
My answers always explained the rise of the instant gratification, social scene (yes it's always been there, but it was being sold in music, movies and media, like crazy) and that society had systematically stripped away the value of delayed gratification, dating and courtship...labeling them as old, misogynist, creepy, pathetic and more. I also would delve into the little understood sex and porn addiction facets, that the "new" un-dating carried.
It was cool to hook-up...after all everyone was doing it...right? Anon orgasms were the new conversation...to be had with whomever and wherever one could, as many time as possible.
Of course they all felt used, dejected, betrayed and burned. I would ask them...
"If the guy was out for sex, and you gave it to him...within hours of meeting ONLINE...without demanding he know, understand and appreciate you...past your three bodily orifices' and breasts...then why would you be surprised that he moved to the next instant gratification challenge? You basically told him what you thought your worth was, by granting him access, with no parameters...and he agreed."
I would ask, "So in hind sight, don't you think you are worth more, that you are more than a receptacle for his orgasm, that you are worth the time to get to know and appreciate, as a person?? This is what dating and courtship gave to people. A sturdy vessel to ride the troughs in, between waves of exhilaration and passion."
You're statement sums it up so well....
"Today's free unrestricted sexual liberty absolves males from their commitment and takes away the shame of premarital sex from women. But this will not prove conducive to societal stability or psychological and emotional sanity. It is counterrevolutionary in its extreme..."
Thanks for the great thoughts!
Oh, Sousa. You died. Jazz lives. (So does your own march music, so don’t be too sad,)
Great writing, as I always think when I read your essays, Ted Gioia—even though Gregorian Chant and polyphony are the only music I listen to any more. I used to listen to R&B and jazz when I wanted to be hip, and I got a smug kick from the sexual reference we believed was the origin of the name jazz (even though the origins of the word jazz are disputed), but I pursue other ambitions now. When I mentioned I met your brother Dana, sacred music scholar William Mahrt mentioned to me that you and he have had friendly interactions, so I'll bring up that he teaches jazz rhythms, and instruments like pianos, drums, saxophones, and cornets, have certain associations that don't belong in Mass. Jazz carries the same sensual associations into the minds of its listeners no matter what their religion. I know I am putting myself far outside the pale of edgy intellectual with-it-ness when I point out that jazz stirs up feelings that are usually better left unstirred . . . . What do you think of my heresy? :-) Your friendly- if-not-entirely-agreeing-with-you admirer.
William Mahrt is a lovely person, and also a great leader of vocal ensembles, which I've heard on dozens of occasions. He also played a role in my career even before I met him. Shortly after I started teaching jazz at Stanford, Prof. Mahrt visited my class—I think he had been assigned the job of evaluating the new jazz program and unusual people teaching in the program. I didn't even notice him that day (I had a large class in a kind of auditorium room)—he just sort snuck into the room—so I just taught in my usual exuberant manner, oblivious to the fact I was getting evaluated. But I later heard that Bill reported back to authorities that I had passed the audition and was doing good work. I did later get to know him and benefited from his wise and beneficent worldview.
From a players point of view, Jazz has never stirred up "feelings that are usually better left unstirred." Sounds like something one would hear said by a church goer. Again, as a player, it was about the music and not about anything else.
Gospel church on Sunday wanna word...
What do it mean?
Many a churchgoer gets the spirit via jazzy blues...
Thank you heysus!
Which feelings, specifically, do you believe should be left unstirred?
"And it’s no surprise to me that people look for music to fill the gap in their lives. After all, music is still a reliable source of enchantment, even in a digital age."
My girlfriend grew up with very little romanticism in her dating life. Me being quite a few years older and remembering analog dating, I have tried to show her romantic gestures, but they don't seem to hit quite like sharing intimate music!
When I played for her Sleep Token's "The Summoning", with the end of the song being what I and others call "Sexy Metal", she couldn't take her eyes off of me, to say the least. I'm hoping this, and Jazz, in some weird way can help younger people find their way to a magic that was once well and truly alive. The world would be a much worse place if it was lost forever.
I suspect that when kids these days say "romantic" what they mean is "sentimental and therefore weak and vulnerable".
By contrast, crudity and sociopathy are celebrated as strength.
I took the time to watch the linked video of the talk at the Library of Congress and have now been introduced to Danto’s theory that art is no longer on a path of progression. Wow, it makes so much sense! That explains so much of what I’ve observed in classical music the last 30 years. I still see young composers striving to reach that next nebulous step of progression and failing to register with audiences.
Ted: I’ve written about what you term the “new jazz revival” and have visited swing dance halls loaded with young people. I have found myself asking, “Why are these folks dancing to music older than their grandparents (the geezers)??!”
Through action, they have answered my question. They say they don’t go there to “hook up,” but to dance. (The joy on their faces tells me the reason.) They have told me, “Swing music is a wonderful expression of the human spirit, especially in terrible times,” and “It’s almost a religious experience, I am so in the moment.”
The young folks on dance floors today dress for comfort, not romance. They go to rock-step and swing out. No high heels or haute-couture dresses in those places! And yes, plenty of new young bands have sprung up to accommodate the dancers.
So yes, jazz is “eternally young…a style of music alive in the moment….” These young folks make music/dance central to their lives—the cake, not the frosting. They all talk about their “community.” (“We go out in groups.”) I like to think they can bring their joy and community to this darkened world. Spread jazz dance across the land!
It is a conundrum to keep the beat alive in these hard times. Jazz may bring rebirth—but these days, the nation leans the other way. Many young folks are lost in the woods, just as the MAGA crowd live in a lie they don’t see. Thus, the disappointment in their voice. Without hope, enchantment vanishes.
My basic philosophy is that jazz music can open a wormhole through darkness. It’s about signifying—what Albert Murray calls the “riff-style lifestyle.” Murray has said, “Riff-style flexibility and an open disposition towards the vernacular underlie the incomparable endurance of black soulfulness or humanity.’” Maybe such bottom-up freedom brings its own enchantment.
In dance, we have signifying in action, a way to turn things around, swing them in another direction. When dance went out of jazz after WWII, we lost something. But some young folks are bringing it back. There is still hope!
Loren Eiseley has written, “I have seen a tree root burst a rockface on a mountain or slowly wrench aside the gateway of a forgotten city.” This natural truth, I think, could take us far.
I don't think a recording of jazz can be more than a souvenir of the experience of a live, relatively unamplified jazz performance. I love making records and do the best job I can, but music is more than any recording. It is a comment on what is happening in the world at that moment.
I think a recording of any music is always a shadow of the live moment. My husband and I went to a live concert of James Morrison Primal Scream album. It was him (being an unbridled genius) and four of the top session trumpeters in Australia. My husband had played with a couple of these guys during the Frank Sinatra tour of Australia back in the early 90s and he said they were incredible. To be fair, compared to Morrison, the other four seemed to be working very hard indeed, but that translated into incredibly vibrant and exciting musical collaboration. On the album Primal Scream, James Morrison plays all the parts himself. It's far more perfect than that performance, but it feels dead. You'd think one Morrison is good, five must be better! But it isn't. Similarly back in the early 90s Gidon Kremer released an album of him playing both parts in Bach double concertos. It was known amongst Australian classical musicians as "Gidon Kremer Plays with Himself" :)))
“If they grow up to become jazz fans, they just might buy one of my books.” If they grow up to become real jazz fans, they just might buy all of your books.
Absolutely!
Ted: "Jazz is romantic music, a young woman told me."
This is too easy. They hear a saxophone in a soundtrack, and that is the typical signifier for "sexy."
Oh, by the way, I AM a "geezer." As my Dad used to say: "You're only as old as you ARE."
Sign me up for more . . .
Hi Ted, thanks for another great article, I find myself having similar questions about my generation. When most people’s referents for jazz are La La Land, la vie en rose sound bites on tik tok or street performers in central park, it makes sense why they would associate jazz with romance. Funnily enough, the movie whiplash was my intro to jazz and for most of high school that’s what I thought it was. Only until I dug deeper into the music did I find what it was all about and now I think of jazz more in the way you described. Just for fun, here’s some replies to your questions from a young person’s perspective (22 yo): 1) young people love live music and seek it out all the time usually either at bars or clubs or shows of their favorite artists or bands when they’re in town, local band scenes are somewhat scarcer today, being a DJ is the hot thing 2) most gen z kids can pick out songs they like from bands from the 70s through the time of The Strokes but only the ones really into rock and its sub genres (all the way from jam bands to metal) could say who’s hot rn, personally I really like Loathe 3) anyone and everyone really, celebrities are going viral for missteps all the time but usually if they take themselves too seriously or are not self aware that creates a big target (think of the video of celebrities singing imagine) 4) i think most people my age love their parents music, there’s a real reverence and appreciation for 90s music in particular 5) I think everyone knows most K-pop is trash (at least modern K-pop, many already yearn for the older days when it was still good) that doesn’t detract from it being fun to listen and dance to 6) everyone knows Elvis but do they listen to him?… 7) definitely but will they listen to it instead of on their Spotify?… personally I love cds because that’s what my parents had I have my own collection that I listen when I drive Hope this was informative, cheers
I forgot the most important one! I’ve rarely ever danced to a live band outside of weddings and family parties. This was so shocking to me bc I’d never thought of it! But it’s true, if people my age want to dance it’s always a club with a DJ, crazy!! In Latin America though there’s definitely more of this, I see it every time I visit my family in Mexico, dancing to live bands is much more common
It will be a sad day when folks cannot distinguish A.I. mashups of the greats from the real Sinatra, Davis, Vaughan, etc. Or maybe we're already there. Real music is more and more haute cuisine that must be studied to appreciate. Actually, it always was.
"There’s a death of enchantment in our culture..." Yup.
Rod Dreher writes about it all the time in his Substack. He has just finished an as yet unpublished book about it. He favors psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist's explanation. I think McGilchrist's book is The Master and his Emissary.
I will check out that book.
This hit me really hard. The truth and depth of that statement is just devastating.
See my reply to Sherman Alexie just above.
I started reading The Master and his Emissary, but got busy and it's a book that demands your full attention. It's still on my shelf, so maybe I'll give it another go. Personally, I have never lost my sense of enchantment and often point out to others tiny things that go unnoticed, magical things, like a fleeting shadow. They light up for a second. Some go on to start noticing, in others the shutters seems to almost instantly come back over their eyes.
What a fascinating comment! I'm a Christian believer, and envy those Christians who can sit for hours in Eucharistic adoration, or devote much of their lives to prayer.
I'm not one of them.
I know that McGilchrist's thesis has to do with the loss of right hemispheric dominance over consciousness. When I was seven, I was almost killed, and have a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. It seems to have affected dominantly right hemispheric function, and because of that, as fascinated as I might be by all of this, it's not within my grasp to try to stimulate that kind of noticing. I've gone through life envying those for whom it comes easily.