Register for updates!
Back to Duke Ellington Orchestra British Tour – February 1966

Duke Ellington Orchestra British Tour – February 1966 007

Duke Ellington Orchestra British Tour – February 1966 007

Pages 10 and 11 of a souvenir brochure for Duke Ellington's tour of Britain in 1966, presented by Harold Davison and Norman Granz. Both pages feature an article written by Duke Ellington, concerning his ideas on the future of jazz.

Image Details

Catalogue Reference Number NJA/PRO/14
Creator Duke Ellington, Michael Sanders
Date Made 1966
Item Format Programme
Title or Caption The Future of Jazz
Geographic Location

This text has been generated by computer from the image and may contain typographical and/or grammatical errors.

Which way is jazz going?
Questions of this kind are never easy to answer, and in this case it might be easier to answer another question, namely : where is jazz coming from? Because one of the most important distinctions between the musical scenes of yesterday and today is that the average young musician nowadays comes equipped with conservatoire experience, with a background of educational equipment that is way out ahead of the training most of the musicians had not too many years ago.
As far as the future of jazz is concerned, it is by no means certain that this will be the only factor in determining which way things will go. Whether jazz will be more folk-like in nature, or less, whether it will be less or more mechanical, is not important. What is important is that it must live, and the only way it can live is with the existence of an ever larger and more keenly interested audience, to give it the support that must always be its life blood.
Jazz, like any other form of art. has to be subsidized. If there are more intelligent listeners, of course, it will move in a more intelligent direction. This does not necessarily mean, however, that it will leave the realm of folk music and tend to move into a more mécanique type of thing.
00 Recently 1 was asked whether I felt that jazz had moved
a great distance away from its folk origins. With the ° present state of rock-and-roll music I don’t know how
?s anyone can even consider asking such a question!
111 Rock-and-roll is the most raucous form of jazz, beyond
r- a doubt; it maintains a link with the folk origins, and
— 1 believe that no other form of jazz has ever been
q accepted so enthusiastically by so many. This is
probably an easy medium of musical semantics for the 2 people to assimilate. I’m not trying to imply by this
that rock-and-roll shows any single trend, or indicates the only direction in which things are moving. It is simply one aspect of many.
I have written a number of rock-and-roll things myself, but am saving them for possible use in a show. As far as my own music in general is concerned, 1 would categorize it as Negro music. It represents what I absorbed as a child and have grown up with among the people around me who were musicians : and beyond that, my own self and my surroundings have been injected into it.
There have been many rebellions concerning our music through the years. As far back as 1933, when I said I was playing Negro music, some critics complained “ Sophisticated Lady is not Negro music ”, But the fact remains that Sophisticated Lady is Negro music— it’s the Negro 1 know, and my interpretation. No matter how many controversies may rage about the direction in which our music, or jazz in general, is going, the music will continue to develop along natural lines. Some of it may become more complex, and some of it will remain simple. There will always be some kind of folk music around, be it rock-and-roll or hillbilly music.
Actually the word “ simple ” is sometimes misleading and is subject to many interpretations. Take, for instance, a recent composition entitled Night Creature. We gave this number its premiere a few months ago at Carnegie Hall, performed by our orchestra combined with the Symphony Of The Air—a total of 111 men. Despite this, 1 feel that Night Creature basically was done in quite a simple manner. It could have been developed into something far more complex, and elaborate; but essentially it tried to tell a rather simple story in fairly simple language. The main purpose of it was to try to make the symphony swing, which I believe we did very successfully.
What we did with Night Creature was, in effect, a new argument, on a much larger scale than ever before, against the theory that jazz cannot be written. There are still a few diehards around who believe in this; in fact, not long ago 1 made up a little story to interpret
matter of thoughtful creation, not mere unaided instinct; and although it is impossible for me or anyone else to paint any accurate picture of things to come, I am sure that it will develop into something very big and beautiful. It will be a combination of the contribution of all those people who are supposed to have natural ability, and the work of all those who come out of the conservatories to add their embellishments.
As you may know, I have always been against any attempt to categorize or pigeonhole music, so 1 won't attempt to say whether the music of the future will be jazz or not jazz, whether it will merge or not merge with classical music. There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind. Classical writers may try to write in the jazz idiom and jazz writers may venture into classical territory, but the only yardstick by which the result should be judged is simply that of how it sounds. If it sounds good it’s successful; if it doesn’t it has failed. As long as the writing and playing is honest, whether it’s done according to Hoyle or not. if a musician has an idea, let him put it down on paper. And let's not worry about whether the result is jazz or this or that type of performance. Let’s just say that what we're all trying to create, in one way or another, is American music.
their attitude. There was a little raggedy boy out in the middle of a field. He was wandering through the grass and stumbled over what appeared to be a black stick. He picked it up and sat down under a weeping willow tree. We, of course, know that it was a clarinet he was holding; but he didn’t know what it was. But somehow or other, intuition told him to just blow on it—and when he blew, out came jazz. And that’s the way jazz is supposed to be, according to these diehards —it’s not supposed to be prepared or planned in any way.
Another theory they hold is that there is such a thing as unadulterated improvisation without any preparation or anticipation. It is my firm belief that there has never been anybody who has blown even two bars worth listening to who didn’t have some idea about what he was going to play, before he started. If you just ramble through the scales or play around the chords, that’s nothing more than musical exercises. Improvisation really consists of picking out a device here and connecting it with a device there, changing the rhythm here and pausing there : there has to be some thought preceding each phrase that is played, otherwise it is meaningless.
So, as I say, jazz today, as always in the past, is a