In contrast, it's also true that jazz that was once modern
is now old — unless it's resuscitated by musicians playing it now, in the
moment, which must be modern.
But how should we respond to stuff that would have been
tired even when it was modern, but is now being played now? For example, this
recent performance by the Nasheet Waits group with Vijay Iyer.
Sad to say, there's nothing happening here (even though Waits is a great drummer). Well, at least
there's a pulse for a while after 2:30, and some intermittent runs and clusters
from Iyer around 4:00-5:00. I listened to part 1 of this piece, which I found a
little more engaging, but still dull. Four decades ago, the free jazz I heard
had lots of muscle and sonic extremes. As a high school kid with a new driver's
license, I drove with my friends to downtown Chicago and heard Ornette Coleman
with Dewey Redman, Charlie Haden and Ed Blackwell. I also had albums by
Coltrane, Albert Ayler, Pharoah Sanders and the Art Ensemble of Chicago. Lots
of screeching and blatting and general commotion, plus periods of abstraction
kind of like these videos — but never boring. Fun while it lasted, but I moved
out of that phase, like many others.
The Art Ensemble from the 1970s sounds more modern than this
stuff that was performed a few weeks ago.
All of this adds up to the grim fact that after nearly half
a century of listening to jazz and being open to new sounds, I have become a
moldy fig. I never thought it was possible. But, having encountered such dreary
music that owns a place in the vanguard, I must accept my lot.
However, many musicians are making challenging music WITH A LIVELY PULSE.
Such as Tom Harrell, who has produced nearly one great album
every year for the past half-decade. His current work, "Number Five," has him paying in duos
and solo formats, really taking risks. There's hope for modernity after all.
