Aaron Johnson Gives His Two Cents On The Modern Jazz Scene – Jazz on a bitter note
Aaron Johnson, a young jazz musician/student at the Manhattan School of Music, steps in and gives his bitter (and ignorant) opinion of what the jazz scene is pumping out in this day in age. Drawing on what could be considered a narrow point of view from one corner of the world, he tries to create a divide between old school and new, progressive jazz by pointing out what makes a successful up-and-coming jazz musician in 2009.
Aaron Johnson’s View
This young aspiring jazz musician has set his argument on one foundation – namely that there is a divide between two categories of jazz musicians: (1) the old school, classic style that has shaped the scene with names like Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong, Lester Young, and others ; and (2) the modern scene that is fueled by young “hip” jazz musicians that seek to move jazz to the next level by separating themselves from the past.
Apparently there two different types of jazz musicians, and one (according to Johnson) has the edge on making a name for him/herself in the jazz scene of today. Guess which one. Johnson marks out what he believes is “?The Modern Jazz Scene in a Nutshell (ie. What is hip?)” by listing a set of pre-requisites to making it in jazz today (taken directly from his article):
?1. Your website must claim all of your innovations without detailing any of it. *This is especially important if you are young and inexperienced. *
2. You must wear the hippest, most urban looking clothes possible. Skinny jeans, v-necks….anything slightly hipster-esque is adequate. Oversized Nike kicks are a *MUST*.
3. It’s very beneficial to have dreds. This means that you have soul.
4. Abandon every American Songbook, standard tune you know. Replace this with rock and classically influenced, odd metered and through-composed numbers. This IS 2009, right?
5. Never, ever mention Louis Armstrong, Lester Young or Charlie Parker as your influences. They aren’t obscure or hip enough for you to land a career from. Mention Bjork, Schoenberg, Aaron Parks, Mark Turner and Ambrose Akinmusire. That way, you might win the Monk competition.
6. Go to a really hip jazz “school” and listen to everything your professors tell you. Do everything they tell you to do, never attend real sessions and let your peers at school influence you more than the masters. Dismiss any musicians that learned on “the street.” Chet Baker? Schmuck! (He didn’t have a degree to prove his genius.)
7. If your name isn’t hip enough…change change change it! Joshua Redman wasn’t always his name….
8. Watch the Spike Lee film “Mo’ Betta Blues”. It will show you more about jazz than listening to it or playing it ever will.
9. Move to Brooklyn
10. Become a vegetarian and look emaciated. The moodier you look, the more albums you’ll sell. Don’t smoke cigarettes or use any substances; instead, do lots of yoga and investigate eastern religions (not for any true interest in it, rather, just to be able to say in your liner notes that Tibetan chanting and Buddhism changed your conception of “sound”).
My Thoughts
Why does there have to a divide between today and the past? To say that you have to be progressive and drop all ties to the past in order to make a name for yourself is just plain RIDICULOUS. Furthermore, why set the definition of “progressive” as something that is suddenly devoid of tradition.
Yes, progressive does ential “new” and the deviation from the mainstream way of approaching something; however in my view, jazz has always built upon what our predecessors has left us. Each artist takes what little pieces of what has been offered, blends them together, throws in a unique touch that they would like to contribute of themselves (like the secret ingredient), and the result is something which we didn’t have before.
Being “progressive,” to the artist, is also thinking outside of the box a little. This doesn’t, however, mean that everything else that came before him/her goes out the window. The musical “fork in the road”, in my opinion, helps to add variety and keeps things interesting. Everyone can appreciate that. But jazz isn’t moving to get rid of the old, and you sure aren’t going to be outed by citing people like Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong, and Lester Young.
Where Johnson derives this “screw the past” notion baffles me. It doesn’t seem to be any more than one large generalization that has been built on some bad experiences. Last time I checked, you get gigs by being out in the scene, not in some classroom regurgitating some professor’s thoughts. Does he think jazz has just gone to hell, or something?
Can anyone else clarify this article by Johnson?
Related Posts
- All Your Jazz Gives a Review of Aaron Parks’ New Album: Invisible Cinema from Blue Note
- Cast Your Vote And Win A Signed Copy Aaron Parks’ “Invisible Cinema”: His debut with Blue Note
- Louis Armstrong Sings Pharaoh Sanders’ “The Creator Has A Master Plan”: Listen and tell us what you think
- Press Release: Jazz vocalist Paulette Dozier returns to play her role in “Thoroughly Modern Millie”
- Six Chicago Students Go To Louis Armstrong Chicago Jazz Camp In New Orleans
