|
- Andrew Berish: Do you
feel there is a coherent jazz tradition, a coherent practice
or body of music that you are a part of? And if so, what are
your feelings or attitudes towards that tradition? In New York,
for example, there are people who play downtown in the Knitting
Factory world, lots of local musicians, and then there are
people like Medeski, Martin & Wood who do a kind of jazz
but much more on the pop/funk side. Where do you see yourself
in that? Do you think it is all jazz?
- Aaron Goldberg: I think
that there is definitely a coherent body of music comprising
the jazz tradition. Of course, you find differences of
opinion over what actually fits in that tradition, what fits
in the so-called canon. I think it is probably safer not to
even use the word canon just because it is a fluid
body of knowledge, and the canon might different
according to each person. Nonetheless, there would probably
be many common elements cited by members of the jazz community
or by practicing
jazz musicians.
All who might claim authority on these matters would probably
be in agreement about 80 or 90 percent of the stuff that
belongs in
the tradition. You would have wild and passionate disagreements
about the other 10 to 20 percent.
- My personal take is that almost everything fits in. Im
not one of those people who say, oh this is not jazz because
its not this, its not that. In general I tend
to find most of those arguments kind of petty. I will certainly
take a position about whats better and whats worse,
but Im not going to put my foot down and say, goddamn
it, Medeski,
Martin & Wood is not jazz because it is too popular,
or because it is not swinging, or whatever. I think they
themselves would call what they do something like funk/jazz
or jam band-jazz, definitely jazz-influenced. I heard those
guys with Randy Weston playing some straight-up, indisputable
jazz when they were at NEC [New England Conservatory] and those
guys still play straight-ahead jazz all the time for fun. They
might not be playing music that everyone agrees is jazz, but
they are definitely jazz musicians.
|
- I think thats similarly the case across the board with
a lot of people who are in these kind of borderline areas. Many
of them are jazz musicians and think of themselves as jazz musicians
even if what they are playing isnt necessarily always called
"jazz." And I think that jazz ultimately, in addition
to being a canon or a set of traditions, is also a set of tools
that you develop as a musician that allows you to approach other
jazz musicians with a kind of shared jazz sensibility. What that
boils down to is basically improvisational skills as well as the
idea that good music is always creative and flowing and changing.
You can bring that jazz sensibility to hip-hop, you can bring
that jazz sensibility to a whole bunch of different kinds of music,
funk definitely...
- AB: When Ornette
Coleman started getting attention for what he was doing, some
people became angry
because they hadnt heard him play rhythm
changes. They didnt feel like he had demonstrated any
technique and they thought he was a fraud. You mentioned that
you heard Medeski, Martin & Wood play in an indisputably jazz
context, playing standards or jazz tunes, swinging or whatever.
If you didnt know that, would it be an issue? Is being a
jazz musician fundamentally about a certain kind of technique
and approach? Say, if you couldnt play competently on a
blues, or something like rhythm changes...
- AG: I think, again, were
going to have differences of opinion over the definition of competently.
However, the principle that being a jazz musician is having a
certain set of skills is one that I buy. I would say you dont
have to be able to play rhythm changes and sound like Wynton
Kelley or sound like Bird.
But, you have to be able to play rhythm changes: you have to know
what the chords are and sound convincing. It doesnt matter
necessarily how you sound stylisticallyits not your
choice of style that makes you a jazz musician, it's your body
of skills and knowledge. I didn't mean to imply that I only think
Medeski, Martin & Wood are valid because they can play jazz,
I was just saying that they are actually jazz musicians and they
would think of themselves as such. Especially right now, the boundaries
between styles are getting more and more fluid. Joshua
Redman is playing a lot of jam band kind of funk-jazz stuff,
Nicholas
Payton is about to have a record that has hip-hop and electronica
and all kinds of stuff, and Brad
Mehldau is playing some electronica stuff. All sorts of stylistic
boundaries are being crossed by a lot of people who would absolutely
consider themselves jazz musicians and whom I would absolutely
consider jazz musicians.
- It is certainly possible that someone might consider themselves
a free jazz musician and have no idea what the fuck rhythm changes
is, but I would be surprised if they were good. I think that most
people who consider themselves any kind of jazz musician would
have run across those kinds of tunes in their lifetime and would
have taken the opportunity to learn them.
- AB: I wanted to follow up
on genre mixing. There is a little bit of this in the OAM
Trio stuff you do. Do you think that if you mix things too
much, it gets to a point where it stops being jazz? For instance,
jazz and blues have always seemed like they bleed into one another
and there are some players who are sort of jazzy but also definitely
bluesy.
- AG: Like who?
- AB: I think of early players
like T-Bone
Walker. He has long lines and sort of makes the changes but
he moved, became more and more a blues player.
- AG: He was probably always
a blues player—I think it is fair to say that if you were
to do interviews with all these guys who are on the borderline,
they would very accurately self-identify as either blues guys
who like jazz, or jazz guys who like blues; or salsa guys who
play jazz, or jazz guys who play salsa. I think if you let people
just tell you themselves what they are, they would pretty accurately
give you a portrait of where they’re coming from and it
would probably match up with what minimally knowledgeable listeners
would say if they heard these people play.
- As far as genre mixing—jazz has always been influenced
by all sorts of different kinds of music: of course blues, but
also latin music of various kinds, African music. I think all
good jazz has some kind of influences from outside of jazz. All
jazz is in some way genre-mixed a little bit. I think real serious
genre mixing is when you start getting away from the improvisational
nature of jazz.
- If what you are talking about is stuff like the OAM trio where
we’re improvising with jazz forms and jazz types of tunes
but we add some non-traditional jazz instruments like tabla,
or we use some scales and flavors and rhythms that come from other
types of music like flamenco or Arab music: that’s just
normal jazz.
There have always been cross-currents pollinating jazz from left
and right and I think we are just continuing that trend, perhaps
adding new elements not explored before. I wouldn’t call
that "genre mixing," I would just say that we are bringing
in influences from around the world into a jazz context. Genre
mixing would be something like that last Herbie
Hancock record Future to Future. There is not that
much improvisation and the grooves are kind of electronica and
hip-hop based stuff. After you hear it you’re kind of like,
“was that jazz? Or was it electronica?” It was maybe
electronica with a jazz flavor, or maybe a little jazz with an
electronica flavor. You’re really not sure which one it
is. So then you’re really in the territory of bending definitions
of stuff and crossing boundaries.
- AB: I heard a record Matthew
Shipp made with DJ
Spooky. You often couldn’t even tell when it was a record
playing, pre-recorded music, or when Shipp was actually playing.
That strikes me as similar…
- AG: I think that, for me,
jazz has ultimately always been about improvisation: if it wasn’t
improvisational, it wasn’t really jazz. You could be mimicking
jazz and have pre-recorded jazz-style grooves, but if there wasn’t
any improvising I would just say that’s kind of “fake
jazz.”
I would say improvisational music that has non-traditional jazz
grooves but is still improvisational is still jazz. It’s
just jazz with hip-hop beats, or funk beats, or turntable guys
or whateveryou can add in anything into it and, if everybody’s
improvising I would say that it qualifies as jazz. I think that
that’s where the idea of a set of jazz skills comes in,
because being a jazz musician capable of improvising, capable
of putting yourself in new kinds of contexts, making music with
all different kinds people, that’s going to allow you to
investigate all these foreign realms, and bring them into your
music in a kind of “jazzy” way, it’s going to
allow it to work
- AB: Do you see yourself
moving more in that direction?
- AG: Depending on what I’m
doing at the moment I might be working with completely traditional
ensembles, or through varying degrees of experimentation. I’m
about to do some stuff with Nicholas Payton’s band which
is a mixture of all kinds of shit that doesn’t sound like
any of his former music. But you know, it’s definitely still
jazz. He’s just interested in experimenting with new types
of materials but using them in a very jazz way, very creatively.
intro
1 2
3 4 5
table of contents top
of page write
to echo |
|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
Interview
|
Berish: Dissections and Intersections
|
Review Essays
|
|
Reviews
|
|
Conference Report
|
|
|
|
|
|