Originally Posted by Deltadrummer
I know you'll probably like this Jay but I'll ask anyway. Why should people be looking for "innovation" in an art form that is 100 years old? I just don't hear it happening and if it is I am asking the question, where? please inform me. That doesn't mean I like what I hear any less. It doesn't man that I don't like to be challenged with what I hear. I could roll off 20 pieces of music, 10 of which would be radically innovative, and for me, I wouldn't love them any more than the other 10 that weren't. In 1913, Stravinsky was writing The Rite of Spring and Ravel was writing his neo-classical Le Tombeau dun Couperin. In ten years, Stravinsky was a neo-classicist. Ravel never became an expressionist. But you now, there something wrong with me if I think like that. Not everyone is going to innovate.
I wonder that myself at times. No, I don't see it happening but maybe it is happening, it's just that it hasn't blossomed yet, I don't know.
What's troubling to me is the adherence to functional harmony, to the old standards and to the tried-and-true chord-scale approach to improvising that's taught in every jazz program in every school everywhere.
It could well be that to expect the sort of innovations that rocked jazz in the past is to be chasing rainbows. You can't get any more "inside," and I don't see how you could get any more "outside" either.
When I see jazz performed I enjoy the musicianship but to be honest I'm never hearing anything new. Is it possible to do anything new and still call it jazz? :)
Jazz is a funny thing that way. It's so codified, you know? Everyone knows what it sounds like. But I guess all genres of music are that way.