Yeah, me too.

I myself am a jazz musician (and r&b/rock - yes, I'm musically pschizophrenic). Little late on the uptake here, but better late than never, right?!

Very interesting discussion here. On another track of the discussion, a point was made in an earlier post about "jazz not being what it used to be". I suppose that's true in many cases given the quality of some music. However, can jazz be subject to the same development and (eventual) acceptance of that development as, say, classical music? In that genre, we have renaissance, baroque, classical, romantic, modern, etc. Of course, these are very general and limited classifications. As a modern jazz artist/composer (not quite in the muzak camp I hope), I sometimes feel a little discriminated against by other jazz artists because A) I write a lot of my own music and B)I'm not writing be-bop or hard core swing tunes. Not to say there's ANYTHING wrong with be-bop or any other more traditional forms of jazz - quite the opposite. That's where I learned and got my start. I wouldn't be what I am without it. But can the genre branch out somewhat (not even necessarily as far as "smooth jazz" but just a BIT more modern) and still be classified as "jazz"? I guess that's a matter of definition, which for music, is a complicated thing in and of itself.

Has anyone else ever been "vibed" by club owners for trying to branch out a little? Nothing bizarre, just playing music the club owners might not know.

Just my two cents. Thanks for enduring my ramblings.

Cheers all!

TKT
www.cdbaby.com/tracykash2


Tracy
http://www.tracykash.com