It’s a Great Age for Jazz, but Don’t Call It Golden

Re:It’s a Great Age for Jazz, but Don’t Call It Golden by dub on Thursday December 27, 2018 @03:49PM (#18772519)

The linked article begins by mentioning Esperanza Spalding. To make the discussion more concrete, what specific recordings or artists from prior to the 70s would you argue her music a "rehashed mockery" of?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s a Great Age for Jazz, but Don’t Call It Golden by coldtea on Thursday December 27, 2018 @04:20PM (#18772738)

She's not your regular jazz artist. Even so, she's more like a mix of trip hop, tropicália, funk and blues. Unique blend, but hardly new avenues.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s a Great Age for Jazz, but Don’t Call It Golden by dub on Thursday December 27, 2018 @04:45PM (#18772891)

If a person defines jazz as "swing or bebop music that sounds like it did in the 40s and 50s" then that person will have created for themselves a concept of jazz which (by definition) cannot evolve.

That person isn't going to get much value out of _complaining_ that jazz isn't evolving by their evolution-proof definition of jazz, though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s a Great Age for Jazz, but Don’t Call It Golden by coldtea on Friday December 28, 2018 @03:09AM (#18775458)

>then that person will have created for themselves a concept of jazz which (by definition) cannot evolve

Well, we don't. But mixing other decades-old genres is not "evolving".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s a Great Age for Jazz, but Don’t Call It Golden by dub on Friday December 28, 2018 @06:52PM (#18780461)

If you're not open to naming a concrete artist or recording that Esperanza is a rehash of, would you open to giving a concrete example of what you personally consider to be evolution in music within an existing genre that doesn't involve mixing elements of other genres?

Bonus points if the example doesn't depend on the introduction of a new instrument or musicmaking device that wasn't generally available when the genre began.

[ Parent | on HN ]