Kate's Second Post
March 07, 2018, by Kate
When it comes to jazz music, I know very little. I can manage to recognize a few symbolic names, but other than that, I’m pretty clueless. We discussed this idea in class, that our generation knows less and less of contemporary jazz and more about the way it intertwines itself with pop/hip hop. However, these readings shed light on more of the historical aspect of jazz that I’ve never heard about. The readings for this week focused on Coltrane’s story, specifically how he changed his music throughout his career. It was interesting to learn more about Coltrane’s musical career, but what really stood out to me was how he was constantly moving forward and shifting his music.
Every page seemed to state a new band member or the firing of another. It sounded to me like his band was never one solid group, but a continual flux of musicians supporting his own independent talent. This stemmed from his constant desire for expansion and creation, a never-ending challenge of how to make something new all the time. What stood out to me, though, was that Coltrane himself even wondered about what would have happened if he had stayed in one place for just a moment longer. There’s something exciting about this constant creation and exploration, but also challenging about having to constantly adapt to new surroundings. This section of the reading made me wonder what would have happened if he had stuck with one band for his entire career, would his music have changed?
Another part that stuck out to me was the chapter on world music. I had absolutely no idea that Coltrane was inspired by world music and the various instruments that they used. This connection between the audience and the musician was completely shifted, as world music has a performative quality to it. While jazz quartets are already quite performative when live, it’s interesting to think about how the addition of new styles and music strengthened this bond. I took some time to listen to Coltrane’s music via Spotify, and was interested in how unique these songs were. The amount of long solos is something that I’m personally not a fan of, and I’m pretty sure I would get stressed out over a 30-minute solo if I were to go to a life show. To me, that’s less of a concert and more of a jam session. The cyclic nature of his music and improvisational style makes Coltrane’s, let alone jazz, music stand out from other genres. It’s hard to know what to expect or what the next note will be—you just have to let all preconceptions go.
The adverse reactions, however, we’re quite interesting to read. Take 5 noted that jazz should have “working unity between soloist and rhythm section, that each should complement the other, transforming individual effort into a collective blend delivering what I have come to expect of good jazz”. What constitutes good jazz? Since jazz is so improvisational and adaptive, how do we define what makes jazz good? While a variety of critics clearly hated what Coltrane was doing, he clearly had a strong fan base that made him as recognizable as he is today.