By: Mark A. Moore Senior Executive, Smooth Jazz Entertainment LLC.
For the past few months there has been a raging debate surrounding
esteemed jazz artist Nicholas Payton and his declaration of the death of
jazz. On his blog, (http://nicholaspayton.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/on-why-jazz-isnt-cool-anymore/)
he wrote what amounted to be a manifesto about how jazz was not longer
relevant in the context it has been placed in. He contended that since
1959, the word “jazz” was no longer representative of the cultural and
spiritual breadth of this art form. According to Payton, he plays Black
American Music (BAM), not the commonly accepted genre. His words
triggered a deep and somewhat divided conversation about the state of
jazz and what it really represents.
When I first heard about Mr. Payton’s concepts I wasn’t sure what to
make of his arguments. At first glance it seemed argumentative and
rather self-serving. Here is this talented musician who has experienced
the highest levels of success playing jazz, denouncing the
very thing that he’d achieved so much in. Why do that? What was I
missing? For the record, there have been several musicians that fought
vehemently against the characterization of the term “jazz”. Perhaps
Miles Davis was the most well known detractor, whose sentiments most
resemble those of Payton’s. As I read more of his comments and
opinions, I began to realize that his argument went much deeper.
There are important elements of his argument that have gone
relatively unnoticed. For one, Payton contends that the spiritual and
communal elements of this art form are beginning to be ignored. The
historical significance of slavery, black culture and heritage has a
direct connection to jazz music. It is a legacy that must be preserved
in order to maintain its cultural and artistic significance. As a
native of New Orleans, the birthplace of jazz it is not hard to
understand why this issue hits close to home. Payton argues that there
are music scholars, historians and even some musicians who are
beginning to reject this connection; seemingly attempting to rewrite the
history books, while making jazz less Afrocentric.
Second, Payton talks about how the music industry has marginalized
jazz by creating sub-genres that force artists into “boxes”, thereby
compartmentalizing the art form and stifling creativity. Most artists,
who play, don’t summarily refer to it as “jazz”. Conversely, I doubt
that the likes of Charlie Parker or Thelonious Monk sat around
practicing “jazz” either. In his most recent interview with Willard
Jenkins, Nicholas Payton speaks about how as an artist, his music must
evolve. At times, his audience has had a difficult time accepting
this. They always expect him to “play the trumpet” while ignoring his
other musical talents and expressions. (For the record, Nicholas Payton
plays several instruments, aside from the trumpet.)
And finally, Nicholas Payton speaks passionately about how the
essence of Black American Music cannot be captured fully in the confines
of the classroom. There is an innate spirituality that is largely
connected to the musical interpretations of this art form. He contends
that ALL people can channel this understanding, but he feels that
academia has reduced several artistic representations into tools that
are merely musical overtures. For example, jazz greats like Charlie
Parker and Dizzy Gillespie have been reduced to musical “segments” which
are formatted and taught as one specific construct. (He discusses this
in greater detail in his interview with Jenkins.) The complexity and
emotional connotations of their works are omitted by design. This is
particularly damaging because students cannot learn true improvisation,
without learning the value of challenging conventions. It cannot be
taught with such rigidity and structure. This is a hindrance to
the creative process. Payton and Jenkins feel that artists today are
seemingly “playing for themselves” and have not learned the professional
nuances that are passed down generationally. They believe that most
scholars who teach jazz have not developed these skills in their own
right. There are too many “academics” that are teaching jazz, that
haven’t played music for a living.
Since this debate was first initiated, Nicholas Payton has been the
target of hate mail and other racial epithets. These notions are
misguided and misplaced. In my opinion, he is trying to address an
issue that stems deeper than its base argument. He has eloquently
challenged ideas that most people have standardized. Jazz is one of the
great contributions in American culture. Instead of lashing out at his
ideas, perhaps we should challenge ourselves to pay more attention to
their merits. Whether you agree or disagree with him, Nicholas Payton
has critically questioned commonly accepted conventions in jazz music,
which has brought the argument to the forefront. To say the least, his
courage should be applauded.
No comments:
Post a Comment