Not afraid to shake up tradition

It is easy to view history or tradition as an unstoppable progression of linear time, where the latest 'chapter' necessarily defines where innovation must spring from. We seem to think that the culture of tradition has been thoroughly ploughed by the current sensation.

This idea came to me when I was tinkering about playing jazz standards on the piano. I wanted to believe that I could be as relevant to today's jazz, playing in the style of Charlie Parker, as playing the more modern John Coltrane. In other words, what is it about aesthetics that makes something seem 'old fashioned'? What keeps some art forms fresh and relevant, when others slip into the dusty archives of neglected history? 

One simple argument is this: Coltrane had Parker to tap into and learn from. Parker didn't have (the majority of) Coltrane's creative output, and therefore he is not as relevant to modern jazz. I want to disagree with this persuasive argument. But how do we go about undermining it as a reasonable claim? The task is made harder, since both men are undisputed giants of the genre.

So my response to the claim that 'latest is greatest', comes down to the idea that, tradition is not fixed by one narrative. It could be argued that because John Coltrane had Charlie Parker's contribution to music at his disposal, (and because Coltrane was the most innovative jazz musician of his time) then Parker has been 'used up' as a source for creative potential in jazz.

However, on an intuitive level, we already have doubts. How so? I go back to the 'sounding dated' test. Even if some of the corny string section orchestras Parker played with, sound clichéd and passé, his saxophone line seems to soar above the nostalgia, demanding artistic respect. Take Louis Armstrong. His understanding and delivery of nuanced jazz rhythm stands out as marvelous and unsurpassed as much today, as it did in the 1930s. This is why I believe it is important to see tradition not as a fixed linear narrative, but as structurally free, wholly organic, and impossible to order. This is what Theodor Adorno refers to when he says that art can lie dormant and come back to life when we least expect it. (Though after WW2, with the onset of postmodernism and corporate capitalism, he was rather pessimistic regarding the chances of anything ever again becoming art.)

I am not dismissing the concept of tradition. Tradition is real and it is what holds the material with which innovators work to make art. Moreover, respecting tradition is important because it shows an appreciation for the dedication and commitment that is needed to achieve one's (genius) potential. [Xref. Kant] But tradition can and should be explored from multiple angles and perspectives. It can be interpreted in infinite ways. The only constant parameter, as Adorno will not let us forget, is set my art itself. Innovation cannot proclaim itself art. Art either is, or isn't. If it isn't, like the kitch string sections of 50s jazz orchestras, then it is nothing but a stake in the linear road of recorded music history. If it was once art, it no longer is, and remains with us today as pure aesthetics.