I'd agree with that. Even in free form jazz there has to be lyricism which is why it quickly became apparent who were the real artists in that genre and who were the shuckers and jivers.

Jazz was never a natural home for strict atonality. The best modern jazz seems to be more pan-tonal in nature and is influenced in no small measure by the theories of George Russell and the example of Ornette Coleman.

What these guys did was free the jazz soloist from the tyranny of having to outline the chords, creating space for developing a line based on melodic and rhythmic motifs.
But it came at a price as not everyone was confident or talented enough to know what to put in the place of a regular harmonic structure.

The only problem was that too many cottoned onto the solutions Coltrane was finding with modes, sheets of sound, long solos that were more about texture than linear development. The rest as they say is history!

As to what the definition of modern means in jazz today means is different for each audience. In the USA there's a definite tendency to see smooth jazz and fusion as the leading genres. In Europe there's more of a 'jazz as art music' thing happening with a lot more borrowing from classical folk and the avant garde. The kind of music you see on the ECM label for example.

Alan

Last edited by alan S.; 05/23/13 05:45 AM.