I'm not buying Radiohead as jazz either. Improvisation is absolutely central to all forms of jazz, and Radiohead, while brilliant, is very light on improvisation.
I can sort of see some parallels between the two, namely the interesting rhythmic and harmonic aspects, but if this is going to be our criteria then we'd have to broaden our definition of jazz by quite a bit, indeed. The key distinction is that Radiohead strives to be unorthodox and experimental whereas jazz doesn't - complex rhythm and harmony are simply part of that style, and for the most part ("modal jazz" comes to mind) always have been. If anything, jazz tends to be the opposite of experimental. It may seem terribly clever and original to the uninitiated, but an experienced jazz fan will find little (if any) in modern jazz that hasn't been done decades ago. Jazz is comparable to Latin in that, while it would be questionable to label it "dead," there is little or no innovation in it these days; the only "innovation" jazz has seen in recent years (i.e., 20 years) has been for some musicians to merge jazz with various forms of electronica. Does this mean that it's not worth one's time to listen to or study jazz? Of course not; Latin seems to be doing okay.
I suppose I could see Radiohead being described as "jazzy" (although even that is a bit of a stretch in my mind), but I've never heard Radiohead described as "jazz" until now, and I have to say that I'm thoroughly unconvinced. Semantics? Perhaps, but if you try to sell Radiohead as jazz to a straight-ahead jazz cat, you're going to be in for it. (Those guys can be quite opinionated )
More on-topic now: I'm sorry, but I'm not personally aware of any artists like that.
|
|
Bookmarks