Chuck Israels Interview

[paul secor]

Some words from an interview with Chuck Israels in the current (April-May-June) issue of Cadence:

Interviewer (Randy L. Smith): Some people say Jazz needs a new messiah. The new Charlie Parker, the new John Coltrane.

Chuck Israels: But there's no messiah gonna come. That person is not going to come in a world that is so marginalized. That's like saying, "Oh, polo needs a Michael Jordan." And polo does need a Michael Jordan, but it's not going to happen because whoever is going to be the next Michael Jordan - the next great athlete - is not going to be playing polo. When jazz was part of the fabric of popular music life, that ended in the mid '60s. The messiah in music will come in some other way. ... It ain't gonna be a Jazz player. There's no place for that guy to grow; you need a lot of people to make the great guy to come out. Louis Armstrong didn't grow out of a vacuum. Duke Ellington didn't grow out of a vacuum. They grew out of surroundings. ... You can't hold down the human spirit. Somebody will invent some kind of music somewhere, something beautiful will happen, but the Jazz time is gone like the Elizabethan Theatre is gone.

Edited April 28, 2010 by paul secor

[Joe G]

Well said!

I would question why people are looking for a "savior" in music anyway. What is the purpose of such music, that it needs a savior? Is it not enough to play skillfully and with heart, and bring some people together to loosen up and learn to relax, and maybe be a little more real with each other? Does one need to play more notes than John Coltrane to get that done? And mass popularity is not all it's cracked up to be. The masses are fickle and will move on.

[AllenLowe]

well, the music needs a kick in the ass, periodically - I understand Israel's position, but the problem is not necesarily that jazz has run its course but that it's a much different animal than it used to be - and those innovations and changes will be coming from, let us say, new directions. Because in a way it's not enough to play well and learn your instrument - that's fine for a specific musician, but the broader requirements of the music are, I think, more complex.

[GA Russell]

I have a couple of thoughts. The first is that there doesn't seem to be a jazz scene in New York like there used to be. I could be wrong about that, but I remember reading, I think in Art Pepper's autobiography, that in the late 50s in all of America there were only 400 jazz musicians good enough to record, and they all knew each other. I get the impression that that is not true today.

My second thought is that if someone comes along who is popular, the music won't be called "jazz" by the public. This was proved to me ten years ago when the neo-swing bands were briefly fashionable. Their cd's were found in the rock section rather than the jazz section of record stores.

[mjzee]

I think the key, odd thing about jazz is that it was a popular instrumental music. It's hard for me to envision going forward a popular music that doesn't involve vocals, and lyrics of a predictable nature.

[JSngry]

So...if Michael Jordan learned to play polo would that help jazz be more popular, teach more people how to relax, and make everything groovy again, even without words?

If so, I say go for it! If not, I say fuck it & let's move on. (almost) Everybody else is...

Time is proving that Miles was right...