The lost art of writing standards.

[Hardbopjazz]

Outside of Benny Golson and possibly Horace Silver, I can't think of any jazz musician/composer still alive that is writing any jazz standards. Has jazz come to a point where new standards are no longer incorporated into the mainstream of the music? Can you think of anyone else who is still writing tunes that will make their way into the mainstream of jazz, and preformed by the musicians of today? I'm sure there are musicians that are composing great music right now, but will their compositions be played and recorded 20 years from now?

[j lee]

Outside of Benny Golson and possibly Horace Silver, I can't think of any jazz musician/composer still alive that is writing any jazz standards. Has jazz come to a point where new standards are no longer incorporated into the mainstream of the music? Can you think of anyone else who is still writing tunes that will make their way into the mainstream of jazz, and preformed by the musicians of today? I'm sure there are musicians that are composing great music right now, but will their compositions be played and recorded 20 years from now?

←

Reed Kotler has made a name for himself as a jazz composer writing "traditional" functionally-harmonic tunes; do a search to find out some of the albums which feature his compositions (I don't have the references handy at the moment)

[Guy Berger]

Outside of Benny Golson and possibly Horace Silver, I can't think of any jazz musician/composer still alive that is writing any jazz standards.

←

Are these guys still writing standards?

Guy

[Jim R]

Hmmm... can this question even be answered with any degree of confidence? I mean, you can't "write a standard". Only time will tell. Anyway, I can see the validity of some potential answers (such as j lee's), but it's all subjective, especially if you're going to compare current artists with past greats...

[Guy Berger]

What about Bjork or Radiohead?

Guy

[md655321]

I dont think their is a lost art of "writing" standards. There is simply a lack of incorporating new music into the repetoire. Many musicians consistently write engaging and interesting themes, but as jazz has progress from a purely innovative art form to a more personal expression art form, few are covering the contemporary music created by others.

It has nothing to do with the quality of writing, but simply the approach to performance.

[Rooster_Ties]

What about Bjork or Radiohead?

←

[Free For All]

I think one important fact about the longevity of standards is that many if not most of them "came of age" during the early war years, which represented a "loss of innocence" in many ways for our country. These tunes became associated with feelings of national unity, perseverance, nostalgia etc.

They came out of popular movies. They became popular as a distraction from the everyday routine. The popularity of dancing certainly had a lot to do with attaching a nostaglic feeling to these tunes.

I think that tunes have to "ripen on the vine" quite a while before they enter the mainstream as "standards". I do think that there are tunes coming out of current pop music that may become standards. Not many, though.

I've pondered this question for a long time- what makes these tunes so special and timeless? Yes, part of it is the quality- composers like Jerome Kern, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin etc. seem to be quite rare these days. I mean, as tired as you might be of hearing "All The Things You Are" it's hard to deny that it's a beautifully constructed tune. Or "Stella". Or "Body And Soul". Etc.

IMHO, it's also the aging process that makes these tunes so immortal. Like a fine vino.

[JSngry]

Different world, different music.

[SGUD missile]

The opening up of the jazz pallette to modal harmony, "outside" lines , and various rhythmic devices seems to have made a lot of current jazz not as amenable to the kind of melodic lines Golson ,Silver,Dameron, came upu with in the 50s.

Having said that, a case could be made that some of Herbie Hancock, Chick Coreas ,and Wayne Shorters songs could be considered jazz "standards" IMO

[Guy Berger]

Different world, different music.

←

I think this pretty much nails it. That's why I was kind of surprised by the OP's initial premise -- which recent (say, past 15 years) Golson or Silver tunes have become standards?

Guy

[j lee]

I think this pretty much nails it.  That's why I was kind of surprised by the OP's initial premise -- which recent (say, past 15 years) Golson or Silver tunes have become standards?

Well, as some others have suggested, there are at least two ways of understanding the term "standard" -- either very literally, as a commonly known and played tune, or as a description of a musical sub-genre. That's why there are at least two answers to the question, and why the premise of the thread is a good one.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

I don't think it's a question of *writing* standards at all. There are plenty of good tunes that fit the bill. It's a matter of people playing those tunes, having a decent number of different people playing the same tunes over and over. It's in the best financial interest of an artist to record original material. Why give money to somebody else when you can keep it for yourself?

So as things are, probably 80% of all the tunes on a new CD never get recorded again. The remaining 20% consists of the obligatory hackneyed overplayed standards - Body and Soul, All the Things You Are, Autumn Leaves, On Green Dolphin Street - and the retreads of jazz standards drawn from the repertoires of Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Duke Ellington, et al. and any other kind of tunes not yet mentioned.

When it comes down to it, there are thousands of fantastic tunes just waiting to be recorded a *second* time - stuff going back to the 1950s and 1960s.

Mike

[AllenLowe]

this is one of my pet complaints, but the problem, too, is that everybody is a composer now, something that happened as soon as musicians realized that the money was in publishing - hence thousands of 70 minute jazz CDs with, maybe, 5 minutes of good composition - I once wrote a review (for Cadence) about some bad CDs made by very good players, titled: "Why Does Bad Music Happen to Good Musicians?"

[ghost of miles]

Two of the biggest sources for standards--Broadway and the movies--have not yielded much for the past 40 years or so. (With exceptions, of course.) The musical, in either format, seems much less of a force in the marketplace now than it was in the halcyon days of the mid-20th century.

But I'd also agree with Mike that there's a significant body of work by jazz composers from the 1950s and 60s that remains to be mined in a significant manner. Hank Mobley, for starters...

Edited July 1, 2005 by ghost of miles

[Michael Fitzgerald]

I'd say the proliferation of the small independent labels as well as the artist's ability to do self-issued CDs is another factor in this.

With a big record company, there was someone from Artists & Repertoire calling the shots (or at least exerting some influence). Now, the artist does what he wants, for better or worse.

And I do think the distinction should be kept between standards and jazz standards. Golson and Silver never wrote a standard. Broadway never produced a jazz standard.

Mike

[king ubu]

Two of the biggest sources for standards--Broadway and the movies--have not yielded much for the past 40 years or so.  (With exceptions, of course.)  The musical, in either format, seems much less of a force in the marketplace now than it was in the halcyon days of the mid-20th century.

...

←

Could quality be a factor here? I mean, if you see some Fred Astaire flicks, they are just so good, on every level (music, dancing, photography...) - you don't find that very often in today's popular mass entertaining media world, do you?

Not that I want to be a revisionist, there certainly is quality entertainment around today, and there certainly was a lot of meaningless crap being done back in those days, but I think there may have been some sort of a change.

[Rosco]

As well as the rise of the 'jazz composer' in hte late 50s/ early 60s it may also have a lot to do with the conditions that jazz is played under.

Many of the tunes we think of as standards became so during the swing and bebop eras, when the culture of the jam session/ cutting competition/ sit-in/ pick-up group was commonplace and musicians who may not have worked together before could find common ground instantly by playing (for want of a better term) a 'pop' tune of the day. As the training ground for jazz musicians- the clubs- declined the opportunities for spontaneous music-making went with it and so did the need for instantly playable tunes.

To put it another way, if 52nd Street was still a row of jazz clubs, maybe we'd still have jazz standards.

[Guy Berger]

Having said that, a case could be made that some of Herbie Hancock, Chick Coreas ,and Wayne Shorters songs could be considered jazz "standards"  IMO

←

You'd probably need to add Ornette Coleman and Carla Bley to that list.

Guy

[Jazzmoose]

this is one of my pet complaints, but the problem, too, is that  everybody is a composer now, something that happened as soon as musicians realized that the money was in publishing - hence thousands of 70 minute jazz CDs with, maybe, 5 minutes of good composition - I once wrote a review (for Cadence) about some bad CDs made by very good players, titled: "Why Does Bad Music Happen to Good Musicians?"

←

While I agree with the rest of you, I agree with this as well. So many "jazz compositions" seem to be a good idea for the start of a song and nothing more. I guess if the improvisation is the point, that's cool, but it doesn't make for memorable songs. The song form of "A" and nothing else, with "A" just being a cool riff doesn't exactly reach the levels of Cole Porter...

[j lee]

While I agree with the rest of you, I agree with this as well.  So many "jazz compositions" seem to be a good idea for the start of a song and nothing more.  I guess if the improvisation is the point, that's cool, but it doesn't make for memorable songs.  The song form of "A" and nothing else, with "A" just being a cool riff doesn't exactly reach the levels of Cole Porter...

←

Well, sure; most tunes written by musicians or anyone else just plain suck. To quote one of the good fellawes, I'd rather fuck a dog in the pooper than play some of the precious art-house drek that has passed, in the past two decades, as fodder for jazz improvisation. Smart marketing move, though, to play such tunes. That's why I think it's a good idea to pay attention to those who are writing tunes which employ functional harmony similar to that used by the great popular or jazz composers, as opposed to the atonal compositions which also have their place in the canon, if one values this kind of writing, rather than simply continue to be amazed that many of the compositional nuggets to be found on any contemporary artist's record aren't quite up to the "standard" of the standards.

[ghost of miles]

And I do think the distinction should be kept between standards and jazz standards. Golson and Silver never wrote a standard. Broadway never produced a jazz standard.

←

Hmm... I guess I don't see the distinction being employed much here. Aren't we generally talking about tunes that provide fertile grounds for improvisation? Or tunes that have melodies so compelling and "timeless" (admittedly a dangerous word) that musicians return to them on a regular basis? In that sense, why the distinction between "All the Things You Are" and "I Remember Clifford"? Sonny Rollins mined Broadway and the movies repeatedly for songs that he did, in a way, turn into jazz standards, even if he was not the original composer.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

"Generally" speaking, both standards and jazz standards are part of the repertoire of jazz musicians. So are originals, so are collective improvisations, etc. But there are fairly easily made distinctions that I believe are helpful in the discussion.

Broadway tunes have a life outside of their jazz interpretations. These jazz versions are invariably alterations - they've been "jazzed" up. Harmony and melody and rhythm are NOT the same as what the composer wrote. You can find examples of jazz guys doing the same thing to folk tunes, classical pieces, etc.

Sonny Rollins did compose what quickly became jazz standards - Oleo, Doxy, Valse Hot - but his interpretations of Broadway tunes doesn't all of a sudden make those tunes into jazz standards. "There's No Business Like Show Business", by virtue of its birth, will remain something borrowed from a non-jazz world, a standard, never a jazz standard.

Jazz standards are designed to be jazz tunes right from the start. They've got the appropriate harmony, melody, and rhythm. They're written by jazz musicians.

I'm definitely not the only one to make this distinction. It's addressed in New Grove under "standards".

Very few pieces that can prove jazz "pedigree" have become "regular" standards. We've discussed this here (and elsewhere). Some pieces by Ellington, Waller, Legrand, Mandel - not many jazz guys have been able to cross into the true mainstream.

Mike

[Jim R]

This topic has been talked about around here previously, but I can't recall which thread(s). I think Mike is (rightfully, IMO) attempting to remind everyone about the distinction between a "standard" and a "jazz standard", because we need to hold on to important terminology for the sake of historical perspective and understanding. This particular distinction has benefits in terms of educating young people about where the music originally came from... a historical perspective. Nowadays, young people tend to be less and less informed about what "standards" are and were.

Sonny Rollins playing "There's no business like show business" does not make the song a "jazz standard". "Oleo" is a "jazz standard".

======

Edit: I see Mike walked in before I could get my shit together.

Edited July 1, 2005 by Jim R

[Michael Fitzgerald]

But the fact that we used the exact same Rollins examples is kinda scary.

Mike