Baseball is still popular despite the fact that it's a game that has been played since the 19th century. It draws millions of fans to beautiful stadiums every year. Most of these fans don't complain about the rules. Most of these fans don't complain about the mustiness of the game. There have been changes to the game over the years. Designated hitters, time limits between innings, wild card teams in the playoffs etc etc etc.
Yet the basic rules of the game have remained fairly intact. Despite some changes, like this year's big change of allowing a manager to call an intentional walk from the dug out, baseball looks very much like it did when I was a kid, or when my Dad was a kid. No one is calling for the removal of second base as superfluous. No one is calling for the addition of an outfielder. People seem very happy with the basic structure of baseball. That continuity is one of the things that makes baseball great. It transcends generations.
So it drives me crazy when people who wish to maintain some basic traditions of jazz are dismissively labeled as neo-conservative or traditionalist. The battle between those who wish to radically alter the definitions of what is considered jazz and those who desire to hold on to some important distinctions has been going on for decades. But I was reminded of the debate while watching the multiple Oscar winning film, La La Land.
The main protagonist, played by Ryan Gosling, is a jazz traditionalist. He has left a lucrative musical career in pop music so he can continue to play jazz the way he thinks it was meant to be played...acoustically. He is lectured by an old buddy of his, played by John Legend, that jazz was always meant to be progressive. The giants of jazz are giants because they broke boundaries and took the music in new directions is his argument. He says's Gosling's character is stuck in the past and that attitude is killing jazz.
Anyone who listens or plays jazz has been engaged with this debate. I tend to fall on what some call the traditional side. Generally I consider myself progressive when it comes to music. When it comes to Rock and Alternative music, my favorite musicians are those who play in wildly original ways. Indie Rock is my favorite genre of rock music because of its inventiveness.
But when it comes to jazz, there are those who take it so far it doesn't even resemble jazz. That's fine and that's the prerogative of those musicians. Just don't call it jazz.
There are some rules of jazz. There's nothing wrong with having rules. Without rules you have chaos...like the crappy fusion albums of the 1970's.
The rules of jazz are actually guidelines and they leave a lot for individual interpretation. That's the beauty of jazz. Some of those rules include...
Its gotta be blues based.
Its gotta swing.
It has to allow for improvisation.
There are other guidelines. People debate these all the time. You don't want to hamstring jazz with too many defining characteristics. But I think those are a start. I personally think jazz should be acoustic although I will allow for a Jimmie Smith type organ or an electric guitar in certain circumstances on my iPod.
These guidelines allow for a lot of freedom and yet allows jazz to remain true to its roots. If, as a musician, you wish to move beyond these structures go ahead. Just don't criticize those who wish to stay true to something beautiful.
