Survey: Why Aren't More Young People Being Exposed To Jazz?

[A Lark Ascending]

I suspect it's a phase - a bit like the dead period in pop music after rock'n roll and before the rock revolution. At some point there will be a collective weariness about nostalgia and something new will kick in.

And the chances are that we'll all grumble about it!

That's the way pop culture has tended to work but I genuinely think, for the reasons I've outlined, than anything 'new' will not 'kick in', at least not in the way that rock 'n' roll, punk, disco or hip hop kicked in.

I wonder how many people expected bebop when listening in 1940 - the choice seemed to be between an increasingly settled swing or '20s revivalism.

[Hot Ptah]

If something "new" kicks in for this young generation of Miley Cyrus lovers, and if this something "new" becomes a well known phenomenon despite the fragmentation of the market and the forms of communication among young people, it strikes me that it is a real long shot that it will involve jazz in any form.

"Exposure to jazz," at least jazz as it has existed up to today, is not the problem, or the solution.

[Teasing the Korean]

One of the effects of being relatively inward in mid-adolescence...

I'm talking about 5 an 6 year olds who don't know how to go outside and play or for that matter communicate. They are obsessed with technology. This is (happily) not my problem, but it is a REAL problem with friends of mine.

[JSngry]

I wonder what we mean by "young people"?

Most of this discussion has centered on minors, but that's just one segment of "young people". What about the age group of, say, 18-28? That's still "young" by any definition. And there, I think, you find plenty of opportunity to be exposed to jazz, if not directly, then certainly indirectly. There's enough jazz that has infiltrated various house and hip-hop scenes that if you have ears to hear, you will certainly get your chance, and if you don't, hey, what else is new?

I think it's funny that a lot of people seem to think that "getting into jazz" equates with becoming an obsessive record collector/historian/Guardian Of Yesterday's Blues (thanks, Leroi/Amiri!). Gimme a break, please. If you get somebody to hear a, say, Budd Johnson cut and respond to it positively, beautiful. If they go so far as to buy an album or two, hey, exquisite. But to expect them to welcome a piling on of biographical and discographical info and CDs of alternate takes and everything he ever played on, c'mon man, ain't but a very special kind of freak (and we is them) got either the time and/or inclination to go there.

If the number of "broken-beat", "club jazz", "jazzy house", etc, recordings being released internationally are any indication, there are still young people who are "into jazz" in the sense of pursuing what they perceive to be the music's "state of mind" even if the replication of specifics is not always on their agenda. This upsets many "jazz fans", who fail to see the connection between waht they know as "jazz" and what they hear these "young people" doing with samples, drum programs, dance grooves, etc.

Oh well about that, I say. Somebody earlier quoted an older teacher as saying something along the lines of always look towards the present but never forget the past. Well, that sounds all nice and wise and shit, but it's fundamentally evil for one basic reason - it totally ignores the imperative to realize a present. The past is over, the future is at best hypothetical, all we really got is the present. And if we spend our present looking back and/or ahead, what do we "create"? Either a pale imitation or a theoretical postulation. The true innovators of this music did not create a "future", the realized a present that was so compelling that it forced other to wake up to it (and in the process of catching up to it, realize that they had in fact been "asleep" to their own current reality). And that is the real gift of any "artist" - to present the present to us as a present.

The riches of this music's past are indescribably deep, but they are also just as surely of the past. This should not be a problem, but it inevitably becomes one, and not just because of the usual shrugging off as "irrelevant" of all things "past" by "youth". It also becomes a problem when "we" insist that "the music is just as relevant now as it was then" and we do it in a literal sense, as if playing like Miles (any era, including electric) is going to "pack the same punch" and therefore carry the same power in 2008 as it did in 1948, 1958, 1968, or 1988. Or even that how Miles played was what made him matter.

Nonsense, all of it. Like "technique", "style" is just a tool, a specific means to a greater ends, which is communication of a message. And is interesting, intriguing, and yes, important as the study of all those tools are, the first thing to be recognized if Miles is to be taken seriously by future generations is the essence of that message. And as hard a time as we might have in "defining" it, the fact seems to me to remain - any artist that continues in "relevancy" to future generation does so not because of specifics of execution, but because of relevancy of message. Armstrong, Ellington, Bird, Trane, you name 'em, they all "speak" through music in a way that transcends mere "music".

Now, how they did this, might well be tied into what was mentioned before - they discovered the eternal in their specific temporal. In other words, their music was totally of their present, but it also defined that present in terms that would forever be relevant, even above/beyond/past the three-dimensional Paradigm Of Perception that we rapidly see/sense collapsing all around us. Because "eternal" really does mean eternal!

But it's not, I repeat, is not, the "style" of the musics that makes them eternally relevant, it is their spirits. And getting 15 year olds to think along those lines about artists who were possible dead before their parents were born is asking quite a lot of even extraordinary 15 year olds even in extraordinary times. And asking 25 year olds to appreciate the techniques involved in say, "Giant Steps" is like handing them a rotary phone or an automotive carburetor or a PC w/a 486K/2X processor and asking them to not just appreciate it for the triumph each represents, but to be in awe of it for the rest of their life. Each was indeed a magnificent accomplishment, but life has changed to the point where new challenges,and therefore the need for new triumphs, have since arisen, continue to arise, and forever will it be so. Life does indeed go on.

But if it's nostalgic at best (and just plain stupid at worst) to expect anybody to live in a museum, it's anything but that to present them with past examples of past triumphs of mind, body, and spirit over past presents in the hopes of providing inspirations for the same in our current (and future) presents. But that requires a lot of "letting go" that I sense that a lot of "us" don't have, for reasons about which I'll not even begin to speculate, if only because I suspect that they range...all over the place. But it all comes down to this for me - the best thing that we "older" folk can do for "young people" today, a time in which technology really is "changing everything" in a way none of us have ever seen, is not to give them our house to move into. It's to see to it that they are motivated to build for themselves the houses that best allow them to thrive in an environment of love, trust, and joy. To the extent that we can do this for them, we should. Other than that, we should stay the hell outta their way and let them get there themselves.

Sure, they'll fuck it up. So did we. But the only thing worse than making your own mistakes is not making any mistakes at all, which is what the Unconditional Acceptance Of The Music Of The Past At Face Value is a One Way Ticket to.

Edited March 3, 2008 by JSngry

[Hot Ptah]

That's a great post, JSngry. I like the idea of letting the young people build their own houses.

One question that remains for me--when we get out of the way so that the "young people" build their own houses, should we hope that some of them create jazz which is new, unique, but is based to some extent on the jazz that we love? Or it is inevitable that any future music will not have a link to the "jazz tradition"?

Perhaps any future music with a link to "the jazz tradition" needs to come from the "young people" discovering that jazz tradition for themselves, or not, and building from it, or not.

As the young people are building, should an old person resist any temptation to pass on information about the great materials from the past?

This discussion is far removed from the beginning of the thread, which in this context might be summarized as "why don't these young people learn more about our old building materials so that they know a lot about them too, and can build with them too?"

[Rosco]

The true innovators of this music did not create a "future", the realized a present that was so compelling that it forced other to wake up to it (and in the process of catching up to it, realize that they had in fact been "asleep" to their own current reality). And that is the real gift of any "artist" - to present the present to us as a present.

Reminded me of a quote by Edgard Varese: “Contrary to general belief, an artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs.”

Superb post, as usual, Jim.

[Guest Bill Barton]

Superb post, as usual, Jim.

Agreed.

[Larry Kart]

Here's a poem by Estonian poet Jaan Kaplinski (b. 1941) that perhaps touches on one of the things that I think Jim was saying:

Again someone somewhere is speaking

about the generation of the sixties,

the seventies, or the eighties.

But I don't like sadism or masochism;

I don't consider the old wiser than the young

or the young wiser than the old;

my ancestor, too, was Utnapishtim

who lives on Dilmun island, with its fountain of youth;

my children piss in their pants and play in the sandbox;

my brother is the northwest wind in the branches of the willow;

my sister is the sunlight edging a white cloud;

I myself am a blind stone frog in an empty room,

with a scar on my knee from the time

I fell from my bike on a highway near Kärevere,

when bottoms were still flooded and in the forests of Tiksoja

violets bloomed and on the banks of the ditches and in thickets

there were still patches of snow.

[JSngry]

That's a great post, JSngry. I like the idea of letting the young people build their own houses.

One question that remains for me--when we get out of the way so that the "young people" build their own houses, should we hope that some of them create jazz which is new, unique, but is based to some extent on the jazz that we love? Or it is inevitable that any future music will not have a link to the "jazz tradition"?

Perhaps any future music with a link to "the jazz tradition" needs to come from the "young people" discovering that jazz tradition for themselves, or not, and building from it, or not.

As the young people are building, should an old person resist any temptation to pass on information about the great materials from the past?

This discussion is far removed from the beginning of the thread, which in this context might be summarized as "why don't these young people learn more about our old building materials so that they know a lot about them too, and can build with them too?"

One thing I've come to believe is unshakably true - "jazz" is not a "style" of music. It's a state of mind that has been, so far, expressed through various sets of musical devices through which you can draw an evolutionary line. But without that "state of mind" thing, the link between, say, Lester Young & Anthony Braxton might be impossible to discern (and even with it, it's going to be hard for some to discern).

Point being (for me) - I take a look at how the various "tools" (and that includes technology) are being used, not the least of which is "the message" of the music. If it's "about" excellence, resilliance, and humanity, hey, good enough. I figure that they've gotten the essence of the message. And if it's using some overtly "jazz devices" in terms of harmony, structure, rhythmic impetus (and not to beat a personal dead horse here, but it amazes me just how hard a lot of this house/broken-beat stuff swings), inflection, etc., I figure that they've gotten the root specifics of the message as well.

From there...hey. It's a different world. The cultural dynamic (specifically that of the African-American vs/in-synch with The Euro/Semetic-Americans) that created most of 20th Century Jazz, has evolved in some pretty fundamental ways. So has the ways of learning/disseminating the knowledges of this music, as has the "who" parts of ""who is this gonna be germane to?" When the sociology changes this much, this fundamentally, the "exterior" (i.e. - the "style") of the music almost has to follow suit. If it doesn't, something's wrong somewhere...

There's a superb essay (technically an interview, but...) by Bill Dixon that's the liner notes for his Soul Note disc In Italy Volume One. The interviewer asks Dixon about the observation that the "new jazz" seems to have lost touch with its African-American audience & connected instead w/a European one, even as the practitioners of that music continued to be primarily African-American. Dixon takes it all back to bebop, and how greater exposure to a variety of musics leads to different musical options which then leads to different goals and then different intents and how that may lead the artist away from his community, which does not necessarily have the same initial options of exposure, since for them, music, although a key part of theiir lifestyle, is not "their life" as it is for a musician.

He goes on from there, all quite logically, I think, but at some point, he seems to feel a bit of betrayal or something at the audience not wanting to keep up or something. Which I mean, hey, we've all been there, and sure, "the average listener" would not in any plausible scenario be harmed by getting "smartened up" or something, but after a while I think you just gotta accept that if you play specialized music (and Dixon freely stipulates that the thrust of the new musics has been towards self first, audience second, which imo is in no way intrinsically malevolent in and of itself), you're gonna have a specialized audience, not that that's "fair" or anything, just that that's how it is, and good luck on making it otherwise.

But, just as the jazz musician might have "outran" their audience, now, maybe, society has "outran" the jazz musician and actually been a part of a "new paradigm" that's got underway (and is still in its embryonic stage, to be sure) largely without any involvement from "the jazz musician" who has been busy in the practice room and other Outposts Of Artistic Excellence. This is a huge shift form the early part of the 20th century where "jazz" (note the quotation marks, I also include "African" and "Primitive" in there as well) was smack dab in the middle of damn near everybody's New Paradigm (which now seems to be the beginning if the culmination of the Industrial Age Paradigm, only now with "non-Europeans" getting to be free-willed participants rather than robotic cogs). So I don't think it at all odd that "the people" now might be finding themselves in the unlikely role of Bringing Jazz Into The 21st Century, because Music About Music will always ultimately be little more than craft, and as much as I appreciate, value, and am willing to pay good bucks for a top-grade plumber, I ain't gonna leave my house to watch him work, if you know what I mean.

Which is, I guess, a long way of saying that my plan is to be there when needed, try to stay out of the way when not, try to always encourage intelligent independent thought no matter what "direction" it takes, and to always remember that "finding one's voice" is indeed a bitch (and a half), made even more difficult by the incessant chatter of Salesmen Who Want you To Have Theirs For God Only Knows What Reason.

Edited March 4, 2008 by JSngry

[clifford_thornton]

I believe the reason many people not just kids don't like jazz is because it's a musician's music. You have to really understand alot about music to really get inside of it. While I'm glad non-musicians enjoy the music, I have to say that they don't hear what I hear when I listen to jazz.

Bait taken, asshole statement.

[clifford_thornton]

That pejorative attitude might be why some people have trouble with the culture around jazz, and don't investigate it deeply.

I don't consider myself a musician, but I certainly have an adept knowledge of the history and aesthetics of a significant amount of the music, the personalities of some of its participants, and enough so that many of my reviews and articles are praised by the artists for not only "getting it" but being able to put it into words. I'm sure there are a number of other non-musician writers/connoisseurs of the music who could weigh in here.

[A Lark Ascending]

There was an article in one of the weekend papers asking 'Why do people no longer read Milton?'

Would seem to come from the same way of thinking as this thread title.

Could be summarised as 'Why aren't people exposed to/interested in/enjoying the things I like?'

***********

I have no fears for the 18-28 age group. Many of the people I work with fall into the higher end of that category and they are better trained, more serious about their work than I recall my peers being in the late-70s. Only one has an interest in jazz - they all have informed and passionate interests in other things.

In a recent report, the UK school inspectorate saw the real inhibitor to progress as not being young teachers but middle aged teachers who had lost their drive, weren't keeping up-to-date or suffering from burn out. That could be many of us!

Edited March 4, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[analogak]

I believe the reason many people not just kids don't like jazz is because it's a musician's music. You have to really understand alot about music to really get inside of it. While I'm glad non-musicians enjoy the music, I have to say that they don't hear what I hear when I listen to jazz.

yet maybe you are the one not "getting it".

[Niko]

not much to add

talked to an old man at a used bin recently he said "there are not many young people listening to jazz", i said "there are not many old people listening to jazz"...

listened to my favorite punk album again, Fehlfarben "Monarchie und Alltag", there is this song where they complain that - despite the fact that they had started listening to only the best music as early as 1976 - nothing much had changed in the world around them since (the song is from 1980 or so)

don't think there is much cultural significance in listening to music; tend to agree that there is a lot of exposure to jazz in today's world, some people just don't like jazz; my girlfriend has had much more exposure to jazz then she ever wanted, she is a far better musician than me and certainly hears stuff in "my" music that i'd never notice, if you play here a handful of jazz tunes she can tell you which one i like best; ... she doesn't like jazz...

i don't think jazz band was the most dorkish thing to do in my high school, chess club and rock band (where you'd accompany one of the teachers on Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams songss) were far worse (but unlike in the US, overhere there are no prestigious school activities like football team or basketball team or the like...)

when we packed our stuff after the last jazz band rehearsal weekend a (very wise although i didn't notice; he never liked jazz despite being a great musician and getting more than sufficient exposure) friend said to me "these were our rock'n'roll days and looking back later we will think that these were the greatest days of our life. But you must never forget that there was nothing great about it, the band sounded really bad, the rehearsals were incredibly boring and the teachers who led the band were dorks" and i thought "of course he's right; but how should i forget how dorkish all this here was" looking back now (not even ten years later) these days really look happy and exciting and full of music but then there's what he said...

Edited March 4, 2008 by Niko

[paul secor]

I don't think that jazz was ever a young people's music. When I was coming up, I made a conscious effort to seek out music that had more depth than the rock n roll I heard on the radio. I basically did that on my own. I bought some copies of down beat, used those to learn a few names and pick up some records, and was on my way. A couple of years later, I came to blues in pretty much the same way. Back then, I was the only person in my high school who listened to jazz - at least I didn't know of anyone else. Even in college, real jazz fans were scarce.

Imo, jazz or any other music that requires true listening - as opposed to surface listening - will probably always have a minority audience, and probably a more adult audience. I don't know that that's a good thing or a bad thing. It's just fact.

[jmjk]

But to expect them to welcome a piling on of biographical and discographical info and CDs of alternate takes and everything he ever played on, c'mon man, ain't but a very special kind of freak (and we is them) got either the time and/or inclination to go there.

Why do I smile when I read this? Then read again and smile again? Thanks, Jim.

[clifford_thornton]

I really got into jazz around 19 or 20. I'm 31 now.

My dad was a jazz pianist; I didn't care much for the "cocktail" piano mood-music he was often into, so found my own path starting with Coltrane.

Prior to diving headlong into jazz and improvised music, I was into prog-rock and post-punk. I was looking for something more challenging both emotionally and aesthetically.

There you go.

[jmjk]

I really got into jazz around 19 or 20. I'm 31 now.

Prior to diving headlong into jazz and improvised music, I was into prog-rock and post-punk. I was looking for something more challenging both emotionally and aesthetically.

There you go.

Similar here, but I'm 38 now and I'm still into Prog Rock and Post Punk. Prog and post-punk still hits me emotionally, so it still has quite a bit of shelf space.

I started with Monk and Miles and went from there

[clifford_thornton]

Yes, jazz and improvisation has certainly opened my ears to where I appreciate other genres more (or in a different way, let's say) than before.

[jazzypaul]

I really got into jazz around 19 or 20. I'm 31 now.

My dad was a jazz pianist; I didn't care much for the "cocktail" piano mood-music he was often into, so found my own path starting with Coltrane.

Prior to diving headlong into jazz and improvised music, I was into prog-rock and post-punk. I was looking for something more challenging both emotionally and aesthetically.

There you go.

Replace 19 with 14 and 31 with 33, and you have my story.

There is so much TRUTH being spoken in this thread that there's no reason for me to add anything.

Kudos to Jim and Jim for getting it right (yet again)...

[crabgrass]

"Jazz may not be dead, but it's smelling funnier by the minute. It's unfortunate, but unless some remarkable players come up with a startling new sound for jazz, it sure looks like "jazz" is very nearly completely installed in the museum."

I strongly disagree that remarkable players aren't here right now and plenty more coming up.

I'm sure there are many remarkable players here right now... but if they aren't playing startling new sounds, it's still just a museum.

What new jazz movement is currently happening that can be seen as moving jazz forward instead of just regurgitating old forms with more impressive chops? I mean, what is going on today that is different in the way Bird and Dizzy was different when they started playing be-bop in the 40's... or different the way Ornette was different when he started playing free... or different the way Miles or Mahavishnu were when they began playing fusion?

I'm sorry, but as remarkable as it may be, Wynton playing tribute to Louis isn't a startling new sound... and jazz is a shark, if it stops moving forward, it dies. It seems to me that the last new jazz movement was in the 80s and it was, for lack of a better word, smooth. Pretty much everything else has been one for of "retro" or another, be it retro-bop or retro-fusion or retro-swing or even retro-free. But what is truly new in jazz lately?

I hope you can show me that I'm wrong here and that there are new sounds out there building a new tradition of jazz. Please educate me what these things might be. If you can, please put a name to this hot new sound that is sweeping the ocean.

[Guest Bill Barton]

"Jazz may not be dead, but it's smelling funnier by the minute. It's unfortunate, but unless some remarkable players come up with a startling new sound for jazz, it sure looks like "jazz" is very nearly completely installed in the museum."

I strongly disagree that remarkable players aren't here right now and plenty more coming up.

I'm sure there are many remarkable players here right now... but if they aren't playing startling new sounds, it's still just a museum.

What new jazz movement is currently happening that can be seen as moving jazz forward instead of just regurgitating old forms with more impressive chops? I mean, what is going on today that is different in the way Bird and Dizzy was different when they started playing be-bop in the 40's... or different the way Ornette was different when he started playing free... or different the way Miles or Mahavishnu were when they began playing fusion?

I'm sorry, but as remarkable as it may be, Wynton playing tribute to Louis isn't a startling new sound... and jazz is a shark, if it stops moving forward, it dies. It seems to me that the last new jazz movement was in the 80s and it was, for lack of a better word, smooth. Pretty much everything else has been one for of "retro" or another, be it retro-bop or retro-fusion or retro-swing or even retro-free. But what is truly new in jazz lately?

I hope you can show me that I'm wrong here and that there are new sounds out there building a new tradition of jazz. Please educate me what these things might be. If you can, please put a name to this hot new sound that is sweeping the ocean.

Whoa! I never mentioned Wynton that's for damned sure! I'm not talking about retro anything. For the past twenty or so years one of the things that strikes me about jazz is that the "Great Man" theory has pretty much run its course. We can't be waiting around for the "next Bird," the "next Trane" or the "next Ornette." There have been lots of musicians moving in a variety of directions and there is no one "hot new sound." It has been and will likely continue to be a period of consolidation and retrenchment. The stunning variety of traditions and approaches that have been incorporated into jazz in the last couple of decades is - to me - the key to why this period is just as exciting as any in the music's history (even - perhaps - more exciting.) It's about evolution rather than revolution.

Here's a short list off the top of my head of musicians who have been producing some very creative music. Some are young, some have been around awhile. And most of them defy categorization.

Mary Halvorson

Taylor Ho Bynum

Jason Kao Hwang

Cuong Vu

Mark O'Leary

Joe Morris

Carla Kihlstedt

Satoko Fujii

Natsuki Tamura

Rudresh Mahanthappa

Vijay Ayer

Robert Glasper

Paul Rucker

Ravish Momin

Gust Burns

Matt Wilson

Ben Allison

Michael Blake

Steven Bernstein

Josh Roseman

Uri Caine

Steve Coleman

Kevin O'Neil

Nels Cline

Vinny Golia

Mark Feldman

Chris Speed

Jane Ira Bloom

Pandelis Karayorgis

The Reptet

Anat Cohen

Tim Hagans

Gerry Hemingway

Joe McPhee

Adam Lane

Billy Bang

Susie Ibarra

Dave Douglas

Nicole Mitchell

William Parker

Khan Jamal

John Butcher

Peggy Lee

Dylan van der Schyff

Brad Turner

Oliver Lake

Cecil Taylor

Paul Plimley

Bobby Few

Anthony Braxton

Sabir Mateen

Bill Cole

Myra Melford

Mark Dresser

Wally Shoup

Reuben Radding

Matt Maneri

François Houle

Matthew Shipp

Perry Robinson

Steve Swell

Baikida Carroll

Ron Horton

Michael Bisio

Tom Varner

Marc Ribot

Henry Threadgill

Wadada Leo Smith

Joëlle Léandre

Marilyn Crispell

George Lewis

Roscoe Mitchell

Tim Berne

Nils Petter Molvaer

...

EDIT TO ADD:

Daniel Barry (check out Walk All Ways on Origin for an example of music which is accessible yet adventurous)

Edited March 5, 2008 by Bill Barton

[Niko]

But to expect them to welcome a piling on of biographical and discographical info and CDs of alternate takes and everything he ever played on, c'mon man, ain't but a very special kind of freak (and we is them) got either the time and/or inclination to go there.

Why do I smile when I read this? Then read again and smile again? Thanks, Jim.

the one thing that makes me feel a bit uneasy (wrong word) about my own interest in jazz is that i was interested in the discographical stuff even at times when i was hardly interested in the music at all, at the moment i believe i am interested in the music but i am somewhat reluctant take this belief serious

[Rosco]

There have been lots of musicians moving in a variety of directions and there is no one "hot new sound." It has been and will likely continue to be a period of consolidation and retrenchment. The stunning variety of traditions and approaches that have been incorporated into jazz in the last couple of decades is - to me - the key to why this period is just as exciting as any in the music's history (even - perhaps - more exciting.) It's about evolution rather than revolution.

This echoes my point earlier on about 'pop' music culture in a wider sense. Jazz and 'pop' have both reached a point where the fragmentation of styles and the changing ways we disseminate new variations has made it near impossible for a 'new thing' to come sweeping through.

If jazz really does have to keep moving forward or die how does it deal with pop culture's increasing tendancy to postmodernism?

[papsrus]

... There have been lots of musicians moving in a variety of directions and there is no one "hot new sound." It has been and will likely continue to be a period of consolidation and retrenchment. The stunning variety of traditions and approaches that have been incorporated into jazz in the last couple of decades is - to me - the key to why this period is just as exciting as any in the music's history (even - perhaps - more exciting.) It's about evolution rather than revolution.

Here's a short list off the top of my head of musicians who have been producing some very creative music. Some are young, some have been around awhile. And most of them defy categorization.

(...)

I agree with this wholeheartedly, and I think your list proves the point. I'd add alto player Matana Roberts (I'm going on endlessly about her lately), an AACM alum with a unique voice who is forging her own path while at the same time mining traditions that range from the blues to her own African heritage. While not a strictly unique path, it is certainly one that is rich with possibilities.

Those who lament what they see as the neoclassical dead-ends in the music today may be looking in the wrong places.