Unscientific Americans

I really need to shape up. I realized I haven't blogged since February 2009. Shame on me! So here's something that I wrote for the oldest still running jazz journal in the world, Orkesterjournalen.

Close to fifteen years ago I was at a musicology conference in London, where jazz scholar Barry Kernfeld spoke about the canon formation in jazz. I was familiar with the concept, but he managed to exemplify the inherent problems of canon formation and the writing of history in a simple way - too simple, from my point of view today.

Kernfeld began by listing a number of jazz names that he had carefully sorted according to the principle "most relevant to jazz." Guess who? That's right: Armstrong, Ellington, Parker, Davis, Coltrane. Somewhat surprisingly, he mentioned Ornette Coleman among this exclusive elite.

Not a week goes without my thinking about the jazz canon. There are reasons to do so, for the ways in which jazz history is written plays a crucial part for musicians, music students, listeners, agents and promoters. We listen to what influential people recommend, how jazz was born, how the music evolved and which musicians you must be familiar with.

Looking at the origins of most books, about documentary films and magazines, one realizes immediately that the American influence is very strong. It is therefore important for non-American jazz listeners to pay attention to how out of hand things can get if you blindly follow the U.S. instructions. Let me point out three examples.

For years, books on jazz history have been an important source of canon formation in jazz, which is normal. Historical overviews within jazz literature is used in music education worldwide, but most of course literature that is used is written by Americans and deals almost exclusively with American jazz. Anyone reading this knows of course that jazz history is dominated by musicians resident in the U.S. Nevertheless, there are significant jazz musicians from other countries who have been at least as groundbreaking, creative, original and interesting as the American musicians. Particularly in contemporary jazz. From the late 1900s even more so. You would have a hard time knowing that if your knowledge of jazz was based solely on books by Gary Giddins, Stanley Crouch, Frank Tirro or Scott DeVeaux. Django Reinhardt and Stephane Grappelli are the first non-European musicians mentioned, then you will find almost nothing but Americans. This is not what jazz history looks or sounds like. Especially not for those of us who live in Europe. Not even the main American players like Bill Frisell, Cassandra Wilson and John Zorn are generally mentioned more than in passing. That's definitely not a true picture of what jazz is today.

For many, the magazine Down Beat is the main paper source of jazz information (in Sweden, we have Orkesterjournalen, the longest running jazz publication in the world). Down Beat are obviously very fond of American jazz, especially mainstream jazz. One could also say that the magazine is directly protectionist. In the May 2006 issue, for the first time in the magazine's 72-year history, a European jazz group was featured on the cover. That band was Swedish jazz trio EST. The odd European jazz artist or rock band had occupied that prestigious space previously, but not a jazz group from Europe. Editor Jason Koransky attempted to calm his American readers by writing "Jazz is alive and well here in the States, and our primary focus will always remain on the music scene here." But suppose that it is not in the U.S. where jazz is really happening nowadays?

Last and worst: Ken Burns abusive jazz documentary series from 2001. On the upside, the series consisted of well-compiled film footage with great music from major jazz names. From the United States, in the mainstream, as approved by Wynton Marsalis and his posse of jazz conservatives. For example, the series provides us with an almost embarrassing glorification of Armstrong, Ellington and Charlie Parker, whose excellent music deserves more insightful comments. The miserable disposition speaks volumes. The series was detailed until it gets to the end of the 1950's, nine episodes in and one to go. This section was to cover four decades of jazz history. It did not. Anyone who did not know anything about jazz and wanted to learn something from this series would think that Keith Jarrett, Bill Evans, Pat Metheny were not important jazz musicians, since they were either mentioned very briefly or not at all. This is almost to be regarded as jazz's equivalent of the German propaganda from the late 30's and early 40's. It is definitely not what jazz history looks like.

I would like to see more critical perspectives on American jazz and the jazz canon at large, and more books about jazz from a wider perspective. From a geographical, musical, gender and style perspective. A good, solid balanced read on a unique style of music. Certainly, writers such as Joachim-Ernst Berendt, Alyn Shipton and Jan Bruer & Lars Westin has made efforts in this area, but there is plenty of room for more authors with interesting angles. Can someone also make a documentary about jazz in a similar way, our world would become a better, more dynamic and interesting music environment.

* * *

"Unscientific Americans" is a track from the underrated Power Tools album by Bill Frisell, Melvin Gibbs and Ronald Shannon Jackson. It's fierce. I remember being almost shocked when I first heard it, but couldn't stop myself from playing it over and over again. I am sure my neighbours appreciated the music.